THE JOURNAL OF MEN'S STUDIES - CiteSeerX

THE JOURNAL OF MEN’S STUDIESVOLUME 9 NUMBER 3 SPRING 2001

CONTENTS

ARTICLES

Reconstructing Masculinity and SexualityANDREAS G. PHILARETOU AND KATHERINE R. ALLEN

Pessimism, Paralysis, and Possibility: Crisis-Points in ProfeminismAMANDA GOLDRICK-JONES

The Playboy Rabbit is Soft, Furry, and Cute: Is This Really the Symbol of Masculine Dominance of Women?JAMES K. BEGGAN AND SCOTT T. ALLISON

Negotiating Masculinities in American Drinking SubculturesLOIS A. WEST

The (Un)Emotional Male: Physiological, Verbal, and Written Correlates of ExpressivenessJOHN M. ROBERTSON, CHI-WEI LIN, JOYCE WOODFORD, KIMBERLY K. DANOS, AND MARK A. HURST

An Exploration of Perceptions of Masculinity among Gay Men Living with HIVPERRY N. HALKITIS

BOOK REVIEWS

Reflections on Anger: Women and Men in a Changing Societyby Christa Reiser.Reviewed by ROY FISH

Treating Emotional Disorder in Gay Men by Martin Kantor.Reviewed by BLYE FRANK

Body Image: Understanding Body Dissatisfaction in Men, Women and Children by Sarah Grogan.Reviewed by STU JOHNSON

301

323

341

371

393

413

431

433

435

Sentimental Men: Masculinity and the Politics of Affect in American Cultureedited by Mary Chapman and Glenn Hendler.Reviewed by JON PHELOUNG

Taking Care of Men: Sexual Politics In The Public Mindby Anthony McMahon.Reviewed by GERRY COULTER

END MATTERS

Contributors

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

Index for Volume 9

437

439

442

445

446

Reconstructing Masculinity and Sexuality

ANDREAS G. PHILARETOU AND KATHERINE R. ALLEN

Department of Human DevelopmentVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Blacksburg, Virginia

This paper attempts to synthesize general issues pertaining tomasculinity and male sexuality using essentialist and postmod-ern theoretical ideologies. According to essentialist ideologies,the construction of male gender requires one’s molding into amasculine role, which presupposes autonomy, competition,and aggressiveness, and the suppression of the innate humanneeds for connectedness, intimacy, and self-disclosure, whichhave been traditionally devalued as feminine traits. Alterna-tively, postmodern ideologies call for the deconstruction ofessentialist notions of male sexuality and the reconstruction ofa more balanced androgynous ideology drawing from the his-torical, social, and cultural determinants of sexuality and cher-ishing both masculine and feminine traits. The historical,social, and cultural perspective may be viewed as an overarch-ing umbrella encompassing economic and power issues, anarena where the inequality wars are being waged, primarilythose of gender, sexual orientation, age, physical ability, race,and social stratification. The reconstruction process is attainedby helping one re-narrate his/her lifelong sexual narrative.

Key Words: masculinity, male sexuality, essentialism, con-structionism, sexual narrative

In this paper, we argue that contemporary men need to negotiate a reconstruction oftheir sexuality, given the clash between the old and new paradigms of essentialistand postmodernist ideologies, respectively (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988; Levant,

301

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andreas G. Philaretou, P.O. Box 690,Blacksburg VA 24063 or [email protected].

The Journal of Men’s Studies, Volume 9, Number 3, Spring 2001, pp. 301-321.© 2001 by the Men’s Studies Press, LLC. All rights reserved.

1995). Essentialist ideology defines and distributes gender roles and identities acrosstraditional masculine and feminine boundaries, elevating masculine identity to asuperior status in the social hierarchy (White, 1996). Postmodernist ideology pro-motes egalitarianism in human relationships and avoids the preferential constructionof gender roles and identities based on socio-biological theories of patriarchal deter-minism (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1990). Postmodernists move away from essential-ist notions of differentiated and preferred male vs. female ways of being and acting(Kerr & Bowen, 1988), advocating, instead, an androgynous way of being and acting(Gilbert, 1993; Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988).

A social constructionist perspective has emerged amidst the present-day AIDSpandemic and the multitude of socioeconomic ills affecting everyday lives, espe-cially the heightened awareness for issues regarding gender, sexual orientation, andracial, religious, and ethnic inequality. This perspective is ecologically oriented andmoves the focus of concern from the sexual actions of specific bodies—male orfemale, heterosexual or homosexual, white or black, Christian or Muslim, Hispanicor Caucasian—to the greater cultural, social, and historical contexts in which sexual-ity occurs (Gagnon & Parker, 1995; Weeks, 1995; White, 1996). The social con-structionist perspective, as applied to human sexuality, refers to the construction ofgender identities and roles from the raw core substance provided by ever-presentsocial, cultural, and historical forces (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1990; Kessler, 1990;Weeks, 1995; White, 1996). These forces create particular kinds of environments,which offer individuals alternative and equally feasible sexual, ethical, moral, politi-cal, and economic actions.

Essentialist ideology advocates for the immutability of social constructions (suchas gender and sexuality) based on core assumptions made about the natural order ofthings (Gagne & Tewksbury, 1998; White, 1996). Therefore, biology is sexual des-tiny; that is, human heterosexual sexual relations are considered as inherently naturaland biologically determined (Gross, 1992; White, 1993). Such views constitute only asmall part of postmodern social constructionist notions, which tend to move awayfrom traditional assumptions of essentialist sexual ideology, and advocate for the his-torical, social, and cultural complexity and contextual totality of human sexual expe-rience as it is exemplified in the personal sexual narrative (Gagnon & Parker, 1995;Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988; Weeks, 1995; White, 1996).

DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION

To illustrate the deconstruction process, consider the following analogy. Deconstruc-tion resembles the demolition of an old, unstable, and outdated building (that ofpatriarchal heterosexualism) ravaged by the passage of time (historical time) and theever-present eroding elements of the surrounding physical environment (the socio-cultural environment).

Continuing the analogy, the old building will be replaced by reconstructing newbuildings that enhance sexual agency. Their blueprints will be based on the eclecticselection of theoretical conceptualizations set forth by various sexual ideologies.While essentialist formulations will help create their strong structural foundations,paralleling those of the ancestral counterpart, social-constructionist and postmod-


302

ernist ones will supplement these reconstructed buildings with all kinds of innova-tive and aesthetically pleasing styles and accommodations to fit the varying needsand preferences—the sexual ideologies—of its residents. Even though these newbuildings will have the monolithic stability and functionality of the ancestral coun-terpart, they will ultimately allow for competition, plurality, and multiplicity of alter-native styles, formations, and accommodations.

SEXUALITY AND POWER

Essentialist ideology has accorded considerable power to human sexuality, therebyviewing it as an integral part of an individual’s micro system (Gagnon & Parker,1995; Lancaster, 1995). Throughout the centuries, this has served as a means to anend, mainly the domination of other micro systemic constituencies, such as those ofgender, sexual orientation, race, class, social stratification, age, and physical ability(Pleck, 1992; Weeks, 1995). For essentialists, sexuality becomes an overarchingumbrella within which such constituencies are being defined and organized (Epstein,1994). The following section is an attempt to show how and under what circum-stances essentialists have utilized human sexuality as a vehicle to propagate theirtaken-for-granted repressive realities surrounding these micro systemic areas.

GENDER

There is a strong association between sexuality and gender (Bullough & Bullough,1993; Epstein, 1994; Gagne & Tewksbury, 1998; Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988;Schwartz & Rutter, 1998). Traditional gender-role socialization requires that boys benurtured to become dominant, goal-oriented, independent, and aggressive, traits,which ultimately come to define the masculine role (Gilmore, 1990; Gross, 1992;Pittman, 1993; Real, 1997). Girls are socialized to embrace the feminine role requir-ing submissiveness, interdependence, interconnectedness, and emotional expressive-ness. In general, they are told to put their goals and needs secondary to those of theirhusbands and families (Pipher, 1994; Thompson, 1995). As a result of such differen-tial and preferential gender-role socialization, an essentialist ideological frameworkof sexuality has developed which has led to the social construction of an unrealisti-cally high standard of male sexual performance and satisfaction (Gagnon & Parker,1995; Kessler, 1990; Pittman, 1993; Zilbergeld, 1999).

The essentialist/masculine sexual scripting signifies the beginning of the hetero-sexual sexual act with male erection, and its end, with ejaculation (Gross, 1992;White, 1993). Under these essentialist premises, sexual satisfaction is defined interms of the frequency of male ejaculations with very little importance being paid tofemale orgasms (Gagnon & Parker, 1995; Robinson, 1976; White, 1993). Eventhough an increasing number of young children are raised androgynously, in an envi-ronment where both male and female gender-role attitudinal characteristics are pur-ported to be equally cherished, most children continue to be indirectly influencedinto adopting traditional societal gender roles, attitudes, and beliefs through essen-tialist sexual scripting (Gerson, 1993; Gilbert, 1993; Real, 1997).

Essentialist gender-role ideology tends to impact on the interrelationship

303

RECONSTRUCTING MASCULINITY AND SEXUALITY

304

between sexuality and gender in such a way as to alienate males from their interper-sonal surroundings, by equating maleness with competition, autonomy, and occupa-tional success (Gilmore, 1990; Gross, 1992; Pittman, 1993; Real, 1997; Smith,1996). Accordingly, the successful and competent male is measured with the yard-stick of power and material acquisition (Pleck, 1992). This is most profoundlyreflected in the area of heterosexual sexuality (Epstein, 1994; Gross, 1992; White,1993). The essentialist perspective places males in a double bind and in diametri-cally opposite positions to females, resulting in the disadvantaging of both. Whereasfor females the sexual encounter becomes emotionally laden and tends to have inter-personal overtures, for males, it becomes an act of power, dominance, and an oppor-tunity for the release of deeply seated aggressive feelings (Gross, 1992; Pleck, 1992;Zilbergeld, 1999). Some argue that these feelings represent nothing more than a cryfor connectedness, bondedness, and intimacy, reflecting men’s lifetime frustrationwith the unattainable masculine standard for competitiveness and material successadvocated by the essentialist paradigm (McLean, 1996; Real, 1997; Rubin, 1992;Sattel, 1992).

However, that does not mean that females do not desire aggressive, power-laden(instead of emotionally laden) sex. It only means that traditional constructions ofappropriate gender-role socialization have given rise to female expectations for emo-tionally laden sex. This is the primary reason why females (especially young, teenagegirls) who decide to ignore essentialist prescriptions concerning their sexuality, byhaving (or aspiring to have) as many diverse sexual encounters as possible and bybeing sexually uninhibited in bed, frequently find themselves experiencing consider-able guilt, anxiety, depression, and a general sense of emptiness in the aftermath oftheir sexual escapades (Fine, 1992; Pipher, 1994; Thompson, 1995). Essentialist sex-ual scripting has interpenetrated the structural composition of the sociocultural envi-ronment so profoundly that it has led to the covert (and not so long ago overt) sup-pression of female sexuality with essentialists ascribing such scripting to somenaturally ordained reality that is supposed to naturally exist out there (D’Emilio &Freedman, 1997; Gross, 1992; White, 1996).

Conversely, the imprinting of an aggressive power laden sexual orientation inmales tends to covertly lead to the experiencing of feelings of sexual inadequacy,dissatisfaction, and impotence (Fracher & Kimmel, 1992). This is because the major-ity of males are either unable or unwilling to live up to the premises set forth by thedemanding masculine ethos supported by the essentialist ideological sexual scripting(McLean, 1996; Pittman, 1993; Pleck, 1992; Real, 1997). The term masculine depri-vation is introduced here to denote the situation characterizing such males who failto live up to the essentialist masculine expectations and, as a result, becomeengrossed in a state of perpetual male sexual anxiety with clinical or non-clinicalconsequences (Fracher & Kimmel, 1992).

Essentialist sexual scripting is responsible for generating considerable sexualanxiety in those men who pursue the idealized and unrealistic masculine standard ofultimate male sexual performance and satisfaction—only to find themselves rele-gated to constant sexual anxiety and deprivation. This also affects those females whoactualize their sexual desires by going against essentialist female prescriptions forsexual prudence and containment.


305

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Sexuality and sexual orientation are related in a manner that closely follows theassociation between sexuality and gender (Bullough & Bullough, 1993; Epstein,1994; Lorber, 1994). The heterosexual sexual act, involving penile erection, vaginalpenetration, and subsequent ejaculation, has been traditionally constructed as theultimate form of human sexual expression (Gross, 1992; White, 1993). Traditionalgender-role socialization directly accords more power to men in the economic, polit-ical, religious, and educational realms—through preferential treatment, admission tokey positions, and the psychological and socio-emotional encouragement of boys tobe competitive, domineering, and successful—and also, indirectly, through the sex-ual realm (Bly, 1991; Brod, 1987; Pleck, 1992). Men tend to display a great deal ofcontrol during the unfolding of heterosexual sex, from its start to its end and whatgoes on in between, making it a promising and viable field for the domination andsubordination of women (Gagnon & Parker, 1995; Gross, 1992; Pleck, 1992; White,1993).

Under this psychosocial environment of heterosexual dictatorship, gay andbisexual sexual orientations tend to be ridiculed and considerably denigrated bybeing relegated to inferior pathological statuses because they fail to provide opportu-nities for male dominance and female submission during the enactment of their asso-ciated sexual acts (Epstein, 1994; Lancaster, 1995; Lehne, 1992). Even though thesexual behaviors involved in such orientations closely resemble those enacted duringheterosexual sex, the power dynamics are different. That is, male-male and female-female sexual acts closely resemble heterosexual sexual acts, short of the dominantmale, submissive female power interplays that usually characterize the latter as aresult of the exercise of male patriarchal domination (Pleck, 1992). Traditional gen-der attitudes and power dynamics cannot be expressed during the enactment ofhomosexual acts, although a minority of gay and lesbian partners abides by thepremises of traditional gender roles and attitudes (Bullough & Bullough, 1993;Gagne & Tewksbury, 1998; Lancaster, 1995; Lorber, 1994).

Concerning bisexual sexual orientation, it should be noted that although bisex-ual people are sexually attracted to both males and females, many of them tend tohave a somewhat stronger attraction to one gender than the other (Weinberg,Williams, & Pryor, 1994). Some gay people (and some heterosexual people) believethat claims to bisexuality are a cop-out that people use to deny being gay. Othersview bisexuality as a form of sexual experimentation with people of one’s own gen-der by people who are predominantly heterosexual. However, the majority of bisex-ual people report that they can maintain erotic interests in, and romantic relation-ships with, members of both genders. Garber (1995) and Weinberg et al. (1994)insist that bisexuality is an authentic sexual orientation and not simply a cover for agay male or lesbian sexual orientation.

Some evidence exists that gay male and lesbian sexual orientations run in fami-lies (Bailey, Pillard, Neale, & Agyei, 1993; Pillard, 1990). However, most geneticresearchers caution that they have not yet found a particular gene linked to sexualorientation, nor do they know how such a gene, or combination of genes, mightaccount for sexual orientation. Sexologist John Money (1994) agrees that genetic


306

factors might play a role in the development of sexual orientation but that they donot fully govern it. Most researchers believe that sexual orientation is affected by acomplex interplay of biological and psychosocial influences (Barlow & Durand,1995).

Researchers have also looked into possible hormonal factors in determining sex-ual orientation. Once again, they failed to connect sexual orientation in either genderwith differences in the levels of either male or female sex hormones in adulthood(Friedman & Downey, 1994). Although testosterone tends to have activating effectsin adulthood, such effects are limited only to sexual desire but not the preference forpartners of the same or the other gender (Whalen, Geary, & Johnson, 1990).

AGE

Sexuality is also associated with age, in the sense that although most individualsmarry within their own age, it is not unusual for middle-aged men to divorce theirlifelong partners and marry someone 10 or even 20 years their junior, during a crisisperiod commonly known as the midlife crisis (McAdams, 1985). However, it is ararity for women to divorce their husbands in order to marry younger men.

In general, with increasing age, married individuals, men more so than women,tend to enhance their exchange capacity in terms of being able to trade money,power, and status for sexual favors, thereby enhancing their reflected sense of sexualprowess and virility. However, the marital market value of married women tends todecrease with age because although such women tend to gain more money, power,and status as they age, the degree of their physical attractiveness—which constitutestheir most valued commodity in the everyday field of sexual trading in a patriarchalsociety—decreases. Conversely, the marital market value of married men tends toincrease with age since traditionally, such value has been largely determined by theamount of money, status, and power they have, all of which increase with age (Zal-duondo & Bernard, 1995).

As long as marital relationships continue to be based on men being instrumentalresource providers and on women being emotional and sexual providers (overtly orcovertly), sexual exploitation will continue unabated. This is not to say that consider-able changes haven’t already taken place in the direction toward women’s sexualemancipation. In fact, postmodernist sexual ideology, with its emphasis on androg-yny, has created a centrifugal force that is slowly, but steadily, taking women awayfrom the centripetal forces of sexual exploitation purported by essentialist ideology(Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988).

PHYSICAL ABILITY

Sexuality is also related to physical ability through the marginalization and the asex-ualization of physically disabled individuals. Physically disabled men are consideredasexual because, according to the traditional heterosexual sexual standard of maledomination and female subordination (Gross, 1992), such men, as a result of theirdisabilities, have lost their masculine ability to assert themselves by perpetrating thenecessary domineering sexual acts, deemed necessary by the machismo culture, to


fully satisfy and control a woman (Pleck, 1992; White, 1993). In essence, physicallydisabled men are considered and treated as half men who have lost their manliness,sexual virility, and prowess, and, by extension, their membership status in therestricted club of male heterosexualism.

RACE

The association between sexuality and race seems to have emerged from the powerdynamics and interplays of heterosexual sexual relations (Gross, 1992) specifically,in the ability of one group, men, to dominate another, women (Pleck, 1992; White,1993). In this case, such power dynamics are played across racial lines of relativeoppression and privilege.

Although human biology does not prevent interracial reproduction, nevertheless,White Anglo-Saxon Protestant ideology has traditionally imposed strong proscrip-tions against it. Since heterosexual sexuality is being viewed as a vehicle for domi-nation and subordination by the traditional status quo (Gross, 1992), it will be to thelatter’s disadvantage to freely allow sexual relations to take place between the races(Pleck, 1992). This is because uncontrolled and uncensored multiracial sexual rela-tionships will inevitably result in the loss of power by the dominant group, mainlyWhite-European men, at the gain of minority groups, mainly African-American men(Gibbs, 1992; Pleck, 1992).

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

Sexuality is also intersected with race and social stratification in the sense that sex-ual behaviors, mainly heterosexual ones, are being frequently exchanged for per-sonal gain, such as money, goods and services, and rewards, including preferentialtreatment and promotions (White, 1993). However, the sexual trading that takesplace between men and women is not only restricted to the direct calculative formsof exchange between the two parties, such as between a man and a prostitute. In fact,it takes place on an everyday basis between husbands, wives, boyfriends and girl-friends.

According to the essentialist paradigm, sex is instrumentally defined as anexpectation men tend to have from their wives or girlfriends in return for providingmaterial and monetary rewards (Parsons & Bales, 1955). Therefore, within the con-text of intimate marital relationships, the exchange basis of the sexual trade can bewell camouflaged, as during marital sex, or, widely exposed, as during instances ofmale or female prostitution (Zalduondo & Bernard, 1995).

PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN SEXUALITY

The essentialist view on research and theorizing about sexuality in Euro-Americancultures has traditionally revolved around the notion that heterosexual sex is a natu-rally ordained and instinctive driving force (Gagnon & Parker, 1995). Since Freud’s(1905, 1935) early writings and extensive theorizing on human sexuality, the field ofmodern sexology has been gaining considerable prominence, particularly as it is


307

exemplified in the work of such figures as Masters and Johnson, Kinsey and hisassociates, Ellis, Malinowski, Sanger, Guyon, and Mead (see Robinson, 1976).These perspectives presuppose that the individual is exclusively responsible for hisor her sexual impulses and drives—a mere puppet to his/her physiological needs,tendencies, and psychological desires—while the overarching historical, social, andcultural forces, which engulf the person’s total functioning (social and individual),are considered as merely responding to the universal, innate forces of sexuality(Gagnon & Parker, 1995; Weeks, 1995; White, 1996). Such historical, social, andcultural forces are viewed as being shaped by the accumulation of individualresponses to innate sexual instincts, traits, and impulses.

THE BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

The biological perspective focuses on the roles of genes, hormones, the nervous sys-tem, and other biological factors in human sexuality. Humans are biologicallyendowed with anatomic structures and physiological capabilities that make sexualbehavior possible and, for most people, pleasurable. However, to what extent doesbiology govern sexual behavior? Is sex controlled by biological instincts? Or are his-torical and psychosocial factors such as culture, experience, and decision-makingability more important? Although biological processes largely govern the sexualityof other species, culture and experience play vital roles, and in many cases, the keyroles, in human sexuality. Human sexuality involves a complex interaction of bio-logical and psychosocial factors. Biology indicates what is possible and, often, whatis pleasurable or painful. However, biology is not destiny. It does not imply what isproper and improper or determine the sexual decisions that we make. Religious tra-dition, cultural and personal values, and lifelong learning and experience guide thesedecisions.

THE HISTORICAL, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

Viewing sexuality from social, cultural, and historical perspectives requires adoptinga social constructionist view, which postulates that sexual reality is socially con-structed and privately experienced (Allen & Baber, 1992a; Allen & Baber, 1992b;Baber & Allen, 1992; Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1990; Kessler, 1990; Vance, 1984;Weeks, 1995; White, 1996). Indeed, such perspectives act as powerful overarchingdeterminants, or macro-level blueprints, of a person’s sexual scripting, which ulti-mately help shape the mental, emotional, and interpersonal aspects, or micro-levelconstituencies, of his or her sexuality (Gagnon & Parker, 1995).

Cultural rules, values, norms, attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies have been contin-ually developed, maintained, and altered throughout the history of human civiliza-tion, in such a way that they give rise to various dominant meaning contexts withinwhich most sexual practices occur (White, 1996). Throughout the years, within suchpredominant contexts, complex relations between meaning and power in the consti-tution of sexual experience have become solidified. In fact, meaning emerges frompower differentials among competing groups, which use their power as a rule-settingdevice to impose meaning in all areas of human behavior, including sexuality. As a


308

result of the social construction of such power differentials between men and women(Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1990), the multibillion dollar sexual industry of pornogra-phy has evolved, which objectifies the anatomy of the female body for the sheer gen-eration of revenue, resulting in the devaluation and humiliation of women (Dank &Refinetti, 1999; Ronai, Feagin, & Zsembik, 1997; Ussher, 1997; Vance, 1984;Williams, 1989).

Gender constitutes one of the organizing principles of social life, a mechanismby which power and resources are distributed (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1990; Kim-mel & Messner, 1992; Pleck, 1992). The social cultural context advocating mas-culinity accords considerable importance to male power, essentially, power overwomen, other men, and children (Bly, 1991; Brod, 1987; Gilmore, 1990; Pittman,1993; Pleck, 1992; Thompson & Pleck, 1995; White, 1996). In fact, men are social-ized to think of themselves as all mighty and powerful, and, consequently, to feelentitled to such illusionary feelings (Pleck, 1992). These feelings are illusionarybecause, in reality, most men tend to enjoy only limited amounts of power. Instead,they use dominance, authority, and emotional distancing to socially construct andmaintain images of themselves as powerful. However, such sociocultural construc-tions of male power (Pleck, 1992) tend to hurt men by blocking their access to vitalsocial support networks, withholding their nurturing and giving support to others,and limiting and perverting the various forms of their sexual expression, through,primarily, the inducement of sexual anxiety and the perpetration of sexual abuse(Gilbert, 1993).

Human sexual behavior acquires meaning and essence primarily within thesocial, cultural, and economic contexts and their transformations through time. Forexample, heterosexual sexual ideology is tightly interwoven with the concept ofmasculinity, which in turn results from the social and cultural evolution of norms,roles, rules, and practices advocating a strict adherence to a differentiated set of gen-der rules and roles, with the male ones being elevated to a far more preferred statusthan the female ones (Bly, 1991; Gilmore, 1990; Gross, 1992; Pittman, 1993; Smith,1996; Thompson & Pleck, 1995; White, 1993).

The accordance of preferential status to the male gender rules and roles hascome about as a result of the sweeping economic changes of the industrial revolu-tion. These changes have relegated women to the undervalued domestic domain andmen to the considerably more valued paid occupational domain (Coontz, 1992). Asthe economic organization of production shifted from barter exchange (pre-industrialera) to earning wages (industrial era), the privileged bread-winning male role—asactual behavior and a cherished ideal for young men to aspire to—was constructedthrough considerable political struggle. In their initial attempts to improve their bar-gaining power (Pleck, 1992) with employers and their leverage over women, malewageworkers colluded with their employers to help create occupational sex segrega-tion. At the same time, women who could afford to stay home preferred to do so inlight of the poor working conditions that characterized the public workplace, as wellas the considerable difficulty they faced trying to balance home- and child-careneeds with those of paid work (Gerson, 1993).

309


MASCULINITY FROM A HISTORICAL, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

Masculinity ought to be viewed from a historical, social, and cultural perspective(Clatterbaugh, 1997; Gilmore, 1990; Weeks, 1995; White, 1996). Throughout thehistory of human civilization, different social groups, cultures, and subcultures haveevolved that developed their own male standards according to the specific needs andcircumstances of their people. Such standards were, and still are, geared toward serv-ing the needs, and sometimes caprices, of the elite male ruling class. It is erroneousto refer to a single male ideology or male standard, or, for that matter, a single modeof masculinity (Carey, 1996; Clatterbaugh, 1997).

To take account of the wide range of conceptions surrounding the overarchingconcept of masculinity, it is preferable to use terms such as male ideologies, malestandards, and masculinities (Thompson & Pleck, 1995). At the same time, the vari-ous social forces that come to constitute the multiplicity of masculinities areexpected to be differentially applicable to men of various ages, cohorts, classes,races, sexual orientations, and regional backgrounds. It should be noted, however,that the essentializing principles behind these multi-faceted driving forces of mas-culinity are equally affecting men’s lives (Clatterbaugh, 1997; Carey, 1996;Gilmore, 1990). Typical masculine values include (a) increased importance on inde-pendence, rationality, and aggression; (b) the exercise of emotional control at theexpense of emotional attachment (c) the overt externalization of inner feelings anddesires; and (c) the celebration of physical strength as well as the glorification ofviolence (Gerson, 1993; Kaufman, 1992). In fact, such cultural values, beliefs, andexpectations help create the generic guidelines for male behavior, which are beingwritten and re-written according to the specific time, place, and socioeconomic cir-cumstances (White, 1996).

In modern western culture, sexuality has always been viewed as central to malepower. Equating masculinity with sexual power, dominance, and violence hasunequivocally led to the development of a powerful, predatory, and aggressive malesexuality (Bly, 1991; Brod, 1987; Epstein, 1994; Kaufman, 1992; Weeks, 1995), onethat lies at the core of becoming a full-fledged male. After all, men must be bigwhere it counts—mainly in the area of sexual prowess and virility—and capable, atany time, to sexually dominate and successfully take charge of their women. As aresult, men often have the illusionary feeling of having privileged access to or own-ership of women’s bodies (Brod, 1987). One dire consequence of such a mispercep-tion of male sexual power is the relatively high incidence of acquaintance rape andsexual harassment (Gilbert, 1993).

ESSENTIALIZING MASCULINITY

In general, masculinity refers to all those qualities and activities that impart a senseof maleness to a human being (Bly, 1991; Brod, 1987; Carey, 1996; Gilmore, 1990;Pittman, 1993; Thompson & Pleck, 1995). It is all those qualities, those preferredmale social constructions, that distinguish so-called real men from everybody else,such as women, children, the elderly, the physically/mentally disabled, men of dif-


310

ferent racial/ethnic identity, and bisexual or gay men (Lancaster, 1995; Lehne, 1992;Pollack, 1998; Schwartz & Rutter). According to traditional beliefs and socializationpractices, males need to be molded into the masculine role; hence, masculinity is notascribed at birth but achieved through a social construction process:

[T]here is a constantly recurring notion that real manhood is differ-ent from simple anatomical maleness that it is not a neutral condi-tion that comes about spontaneously through biological maturationbut rather is a precarious or artificial state that boys must winagainst powerful odds. (Gilmore, 1990, p. 11)

Viewing masculinity as an achieved state (Brod, 1987; Gilbert, 1993; Gilmore1990; Pittman, 1993; Thompson, & Pleck, 1995) places it under the rubric of essen-tialist notions of polarized and preferential gender-role expectations which are con-sidered to be a natural and integral part of any social group’s system of power rela-tions (Pleck, 1992; Thompson & Pleck, 1995; White, 1996). The essentializing ofthe social construction of masculinity and femininity, as culturally based ideologiesnecessary for the scripting of gender relations, attitudes, and beliefs, constitutes apowerful force entrenched in the pillars of social institutions (Brod, 1987; Clatter-baugh, 1997; Fracher & Kimmel, 1992; Gilmore, 1990; Hare-Mustin & Marecek,1990; White, 1996). This force systematically and methodically dichotomizes maleand female gender differences and attributes such qualities as good or bad, positiveor negative, strong or weak, respectively (Smith, 1996). Oftentimes, such essentializ-ing takes the extreme position of attributing trait characteristics to masculinity andfemininity, thereby viewing them as psychologically and/or biologically based mas-ter characteristics (Brod, 1987; Kimmel, 1996; Thompson & Pleck, 1995; White,1996).

THE PROPAGATORS OF MASCULINE IDEOLOGY

Masculinity tends to be activated through a continuous group activity subject to theconstant supervision and scrutiny of all the significant males in the man’s immediatesocial environment (Bly, 1991; Ford, 1992; Pittman, 1993). Such activity beginswith a series of rites of passage headed by the father, or a predominant father figurein the son’s life, who is responsible for indoctrinating his son into the mysteriousinner world of machismo culture: “[a culture characterized by] an ideal of masculin-ity defined by assertiveness, aggression, and competition; relatively privilegedaccess to space and mobility; disproportionate control over resources; and a willing-ness to take risks” (Lancaster, 1995, p. 140). For this reason:

[m]any societies have evolved elaborate rituals and rites ofpassage to help induct young men into manhood. Some involvebrutal hazings and tests of courage while others require endurance,aptitude and skill. They all share the underlying premise that real

311


men are made, not born. This feeds into men’s gender insecurity.(Heise, 1995, p. 129)

Masculine ideology relegates women to the secondary but much arduous role ofhaving to supervise and maintain their son’s masculinity (Brod, 1987; McLean,1996). Traditional mothers, who had spent all their lives abiding by the rules of apatriarchal system, tend to endlessly agonize over their son’s masculinity (Carey,1996; Lancaster, 1995). In order to elicit the cooperation of these women, the malepower elite advertise the merits of masculinity as supposedly for the general goodand protection of the family, in other words, for mothers’ and children’s sake (Clat-terbaugh, 1997; Thompson & Pleck, 1995). In reality, it comes to accomplish exactlythe opposite, namely the domination and subordination of women and the snatchingaway of legitimate power from them and their children (Pittman, 1993; Pleck, 1992).

In addition to their mothers’ constant admonitions, young boys are also beingscrutinized by their significant others, as well as the various macro-agents of socialcontrol, such as teachers, counselors, police officers, and judges, for possible devia-tions from the prescribed recipe of manhood (Kimmel, 1996). Behaviors that aredeemed as girlish or feminine, such as showing excessive feelings and emotions,crying, being passive, and acting dependent, tend not to be tolerated, and, in fact,they loom over the young boy’s life like ghosts from the past created from thousandsof years of historical, social, and cultural gender wars and traditional male genderrole socialization:

Men in many cultures wage daily battle to prove to themselves andothers that they qualify for inclusion in the esteemed categorymale. To be not male, is to be reduced to the status of woman, orworse, to be queer. (Heise, 1995, p. 129)

However, some societies permit or require some form of male-male sexual activ-ity as between older and younger males, or between adolescents, but not betweenadult men. The underlying characteristic of male-male sexual activity rites in mostpreliterate societies is the marking of the young male’s initiation into manhood. Forinstance, among the Sambian people of New Guinea, nine- to 12-year-old malesundergo several sexual rites of passage whereby it is believed that in order to acquirethe fierce manhood of the headhunter, they perform fellatio on older males and drinkmen’s milk (ingest semen, which is believed to give rise to puberty) (Money, 1990;Stoller & Herdt, 1985). However, by the age of 19, these young men are expected totake brides and enter exclusively male-female heterosexual relationships.

MASCULINE RECONSTRUCTIONS

Having deconstructed essentialist masculinity from a social constructionist perspec-tive, we now turn to the reconstruction process. Such a process begins by acknowl-edging and responding positively toward the feminist critique of patriarchy while atthe same time maintaining empathy toward the predicament of men (Carey, 1996;Levant, 1995). The reconstruction process involves the painstaking examination and


312

selective collection of the organizing principle elements of masculinity (Clatter-baugh, 1997; Gilmore, 1990) from the general pool of constituent elements resultingfrom the breaking down of the overarching core concept of masculinity. Levant(1995) argues that taking apart the traditional model of masculinity yields such traitsas the extensive sacrifices men typically make for their families; the consistent useof their logic and problem-solving skills; their overall tendency to be self-reliant,risk-takers, and self-assertive; and their general attitude for maintaining calmness inthe face of danger (Carey, 1996; Gilmore, 1990).

There are, however, a number of traits that tend to take away from the generalegalitarianism, happiness, balance, and harmony in men’s relationships and interac-tions with their loved ones (Levant, 1995). Such include (a) their relative inability toexperience intimacy, closeness, and emotional connectedness with their significantothers (Rubin, 1992; Sattel, 1992), (b) their general inclination to resort to anger andviolence when faced with frustrating situations (Kaufman, 1992), (c) their consistentand persistent refraining from house-care and childcare work, and (d) their tendencyto consider sexuality and emotionality as two separate and distinct entities to be pur-sued for their own sake.

MALE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES:ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION

Abiding by the premises of traditional masculinity may prove hazardous to men’sphysical and psychological health (Bly, 1991; Goldberg, 1976; Harrison, Chin, &Ficarrotto, 1992; McLean, 1996; Pittman, 1993). Male sexual anxiety ultimatelybecomes manifested in the form of substance or object addictions and depression(Fracher & Kimmel, 1992; Real, 1997). Family members, friends, and the entire net-work of a man’s social support group often collude with the cultural expectations ofmasculinity (Carey, 1996; Gilmore, 1990) to minimize the seriousness of maledepression and object addictions, brushing them off as just men’s ways of being andacting (McLean, 1996; Thompson & Pleck, 1995).

Contemporary perspectives dealing with men’s issues deny that men are in anadvantageous position compared to women (Goldberg, 1976). Rather, they see menas oppressed and burdened by their provider role, viewed as necessitating their emo-tional cut-off, not only from their inner selves, but, most important, from bondingwith and obtaining nurturance from other men (Bly, 1991; Clatterbaugh, 1997; Gold-berg, 1976).

Masculine identity development is not a process of developing traits, tendencies,and roles. Rather, it constitutes a process of eliminating natural traits and tendenciesfor bondedness, connectedness, expressiveness, and intimacy (McAdams, 1985;Rubin, 1992; Sattel, 1992). This elimination lays the foundation for the developmentof depression later on in adult men’s lives (Real, 1997). Unequal gender-role social-ization, necessitated by the doctrine of masculinity (Carey, 1996; Gilmore, 1990),advocates males’ dissociation from their feeling states (McLean, 1996), necessaryfor enhancing their relational world, in addition to downplaying and discouragingfemale aspirations to competitiveness, toughness, and success in the market econ-omy (Bly, 1991; Brod, 1987; Gilmore, 1990; Thompson & Pleck, 1995).


313

This gives rise to the emergence of two kinds of abuse, disempowering abuseand the falsely empowering variety. From a young age, boys tend to be falselyempowered with feelings of grandiosity, thereby being set up, as adult men, tobecome offensive. In the long run, this causes them to have too little shame, thuscontributing to their covert depression—too little shame because in order to be ableto attain and maintain their superior status over others, especially women, they haveto dominate them instead of cooperating with them. Therefore, young boys tend toexperience depression not only because of the uncomfortable feelings that are usu-ally associated with the imposition of dominant actions over others, but also becauseof their overall inability to attain and maintain the idealized superior masculine sta-tus (Pollack, 1998). In addition, men are subject to alterations between disempower-ing abuse and the falsely empowering variety. This switching back and forth from aone-down to a one-up position tends to induce them with a perpetual state of anxietyand depression (Real, 1997).

Covertly depressed men usually turn to any substance, person, or action to regu-late their self-esteem. In this addictive process, they hope to replenish their basicsense of self as valuable and important, in other words, their from-within self-esteem. As long as their connection to the object of their addiction, be it any tangiblesubstance or intangible ideal, is undisturbed, they tend to feel good about them-selves. However, when such connection is disrupted, their basic sense of self-worthand self-esteem decreases considerably, with the result that their covert depressioncomes to the surface. The main difference between non-depressed and depressedmen is that the latter use substances, persons, or actions as their basic sources of self-worth and self-esteem and not as healthy supplements to it (Real, 1997).

RECONSTRUCTING PERSONAL NARRATIVES

Abiding by the premises of existing sexual narratives is inherently limiting becausesuch narratives fall under the auspices of age-old social prescriptions and proscrip-tions advocated by the status quo (McAdams, 1993). In turn, abiding by such gen-der- and class-based prescriptions and proscriptions tends to lock individuals intonever-ending vicious and inflexible patterned cycles of thinking and acting, whicheventually lead to the generation of powerful restraining forces. Such forces tend tohave a limiting effect on an individual’s free will, and, ultimately, on his or hercapacity to initiate acts geared toward sexual emancipation and the reduction of sex-ual anxiety.

Gender reconstruction starts with acknowledging and rewriting one’s personalnarrative, which is, by definition, socially, culturally, and historically determined(Freedman & Combs, 1996; McAdams, 1985, 1993; Weeks, 1995; White & Epston,1990). The person engaged in the process of narrating his or her sexual life (past,present, and future) tends to assume the role of a sexual activist. The individualprocesses of self-reflection, self-activity, and self-making, which are indispensablefor the unearthing, rearrangement, construction, and establishment of an emanci-pated sexual identity, tend to assume an important position in the personal repertoireof such an activist (Freedman & Combs, 1996; McAdams, 1985, 1993; White &Epston, 1990). By prioritizing these processes, an individual actor places himself or


314

herself at the center of attention. He or she is, in effect, engaged in a process ofbecoming sexually emancipated and then resurrected from the deep-seated struc-turally determined and sexually limiting influences of patriarchy.

Re-narrating existing sexual narratives is liberating in the sense that it providesthe individual with the necessary means, through autobiographical self-reflection andreconstruction of one’s sexual identity, to rid the shackles of the confining essential-ist ideology set forth by biological determinism (Freedman & Combs, 1996;Guidano, 1991; White & Epston, 1990). Through the process of re-narration an indi-vidual can, instead, redirect his or her energies and potentialities toward the arduousongoing project of sexual reconstruction and development in order to achieve sexualliberation, fulfillment, and efficacy. Freedman and Combs (1996) describe the powerof the narrative metaphor to transform and transcend oppressing realities (such asmale sexual realities):

Listening to White [a key figure in the development and therapeu-tic use of the narrative approach], we no longer tried to solve prob-lems [such as male sexual anxiety, depression, and addiction].Instead, we became interested in working with people to bringforth and “thicken” (Geertz, 1978) stories [newly reconstructedand sexually liberating] that did not support or sustain problems.We discovered that, as people began to inhabit and live out thesealternative stories, the results went beyond solving problems.Within the new stories, people could live out new [sexual] self-images, new possibilities for [sexual] relationship, and newfutures. (Freedman & Combs, 1996, pp. 15-16)

Most narrative therapists expose subjugated dominant discourses, such as essen-tialist sexual discourses, by asking about the contextual influences on the problem,for example:

What feeds the problem of male sexual anxiety? The essen-tialist masculine ideology for appropriate male gender-role social-ization.

What starves male sexual anxiety? Postmodernist androgy-nous gender-role socialization.

Who benefits from male sexual anxiety? Male-dominatedpatriarchal institutions.

In what settings might the problematic attitude be useful? Inproviding men with illusionary power over women.

What sorts of people would proudly advocate for the prob-lem? The stakeholders in the perpetuation of patriarchy.

What groups of people would definitely be opposed to it andits intentions? Ordinary men and women who are directly or indi-rectly affected by male sexual anxiety, object addictions, anddepression.


315

The construction of preferred sexual stories almost always goes hand-in-handwith the process of unmasking or deconstruction. When men, through the unmaskingprocess of relating their sexual anxiety to essentialist societal sexual discourses, seetheir local problems as particular instances of political problems (such as essentialistgender-role ideology) in the larger society, they can become motivated to deal withthem differently (Freedman & Combs, 1996). The entryway for inviting men toauthor and live new empowering sexual stories is through enabling them to searchand identify unique outcomes, that is, anything that would not have been predicted inlight of the problem-saturated sexual story. In fact, unique outcomes constitute open-ings that, through questions and reflective discussion, can be developed into newsexual stories.

As Guidano (1991) suggests, the goal of re-narrating deep-seated, structuredsexual stories is not so much to correct false or distorted world-views as it is to assistindividuals “to become aware of, examine, and modify tacit core self-structures anddefinitions of identity that may once have been [or seemed] adaptive but are nolonger so” (p. 9). A key to re-narrating men’s subjugated sexual stories is to bringpreviously un-storied events to the surface. This is because in any life there arealways more events that don’t get storied than there are ones than do. Therefore,when the lifelong sexual narratives of men carry hurtful meanings or seem to offeronly unpleasant choices, they can be changed by highlighting different, previouslyun-storied events or by taking new meaning from already storied events, therebyconstructing new empowering sexual narratives.

Even though reconstructing sexual narratives operates at the micro-level, collec-tive change at the macro-level can take place if a sufficient number of individuals—especially powerful individuals, such as politicians, actors, financiers, and mediastars—acknowledge, agree upon, and support a new androgynous reality. Forinstance, an androgynous reality, substituting dominance for equality, could emergefrom the power elite’s additive effect of their newly reconstructed agentic, emanci-pated, and egalitarian sexual selves; the aggregate of their personal emancipated sex-ual selves would bring about a politically emancipated androgynous reality(Guidano, 1991). On a macro level, the premises on which newly reconstructedandrogynous sexual narratives are based are in fact synonymous to those set forth bysocial constructionism (McAdams, 1985, 1993).

Societal and cultural change can take place swiftly and easily by urging suchpowerful and influential men to revisit, and ultimately re-narrate, the sexual scriptscharacterizing their sexual narratives (Guidano, 1991). This is no easy task, however,because these deep-seated essentialist, ideological sexual scripts are usually hard tolocate and bring to the surface, let alone alter. Sexual scripts tend to become one withthe psyche and total personality of such men and indistinguishable from it (McAdams,1985, 1993). It is as if all those years of traditional masculine socialization and differ-ential gender scripting have finally caught up with such men, hardening their veryhearts and souls (Fracher & Kimmel, 1992; McLean, 1996). Once such issues arebrought into consciousness and to the forefront, once these decade-old stories of pain,suffering, frustration, and shame are externalized, these men typically feel a sense ofpersonal relief and sometimes even release (Carey, 1996; McAdams, 1985, 1993;Rosen, 1996). They have been trapped in their subjugated stories so that the simple act


316

of telling such stories to others brings new meaning and perspective to their lives, and,ultimately, gives rise to the creation of an androgynous-based sexual reality.

The particularized historical, social, and cultural contexts are paramount in theinteractive, collaborative, and evolutionary process of androgynous gender-basedknowledge construction (Gerson, 1993; Lorber, 1994). Commenting on the long-term nature of the process of knowledge construction and reconstruction, Rosen(1996) suggests that androgynous knowledge and meaning are continually beingsocially defined and redefined accordingly depending on the historical, social, andcultural forces operating within the given social matrix at a particular point in time.There exist no universal and immutable essences or objective truths on which suchandrogynous knowledge is based:

That is, societies construct the “lenses” [such as sexual lenses]through which their members interpret the world. The [sexual]realities that each of us take for granted are the [essentialist] reali-ties that our societies have surrounded [socialized] us with sincebirth. These realities provide the [sexual] beliefs, practices, words,and experiences from which we make up our lives, or, as wewould say in postmodernist jargon, “constitute our selves.” (Freed-man & Combs, 1996, p. 16)

We are suggesting creating and establishing a less oppressing reality, namely anandrogynous reality, by considering, as a starting point, the demolition of the exist-ing masculine ethos, re-constructing, re-narrating, in its place, more equitable, func-tional, and less limiting gender and sexual male scripts (Gerson, 1993; Gilbert,1993). Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch (1974) suggest that when a sufficient num-ber of individuals reach agreement regarding the definition of some entity, then thatentity tends to be viewed as an objective reality. In order to help construct theknowledge base of androgyny, changes have to be implemented in the everydayplaying field of social exchange—such as in the field of close interpersonal relation-ships where most of the gender wars are being waged—particularly, in how tradi-tional conceptions of female/male sexuality and masculinity are intertwined (Vance,1984; Zalduondo & Bernard, 1995; Zilbergeld, 1999).

REFERENCES

Allen, K. R., & Baber, K. M. (1992a). Ethical and epistemological tensions in apply-ing a postmodern perspective to feminist research. Psychology of Women Quar-terly, 16, 1-15.

Allen, K. R., & Baber, K. M. (1992b). Starting a revolution in family life education:A feminist vision. Family Relations, 41, 378-384.

Baber, K. M., & Allen, K. R. (1992). Women and families: Feminist reconstructions.New York: Guilford.

Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Neale, M. C., & Agyei, Y. (1993). Heritable factorsinfluence sexual orientation in women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 217-223.


317

Barlow, D. H., & Durand, V. M. (1995). Abnormal psychology. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole.

Bly, R. (1991). Iron John. New York: Addison-Wesley.Brod, H. (Ed.). (1987). The making of masculinities: The new men’s studies. Boston:

Allen & Unwin.Bullough, V., & Bullough, B. (1993). Cross-dressing, sex, and gender. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.Carey, M. (1996). Healing the mother wound. In C. McLean, M. Carey, & C. White,

(Eds.), Men’s ways of being (pp. 85-90). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Carey, M. (1996). Perspectives on the men’s movement. In C. McLean, M. Carey &

C. White (Eds.), Men’s ways of being (pp. 153-162). Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.

Clatterbaugh, K. (1997). Contemporary perspectives on masculinity: Men, women,and politics in modern society (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgiatrap. New York: Basic.

Dank, B. M., & Refinetti, R. (1999). Sex work & sex workers. New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Publishers.

D’Emilio, J. & Freedman, E. B. (1997). Intimate matters: A history of sexuality inAmerica (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Epstein, S. (1994). A queer encounter: Sociology and the study of sexuality. Socio-logical Theory, 12, 188-202.

Fine, M. (1992). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing dis-course of desire. In M. Fine (Ed.), Disruptive voices: The possibilities of femi-nist research (pp. 31-59). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Ford, D. H. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. New-bury Park, CA: Sage.

Fracher, J., & Kimmel, M. S. (1992). Hard issues and soft spots: Counseling menabout sexuality. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp.438-450). New York: Macmillan.

Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction ofpreferred realities. New York: Norton Press.

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. In J. Strachey (Ed.), Thestandard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol.5). London: Hogarth.

Freud, S. (1935). A general introduction to psychoanalysis. New York: Liveright.Friedman, R. C., & Downey, J. I. (1994). Homosexuality. New England Journal of

Medicine, 331, 923-930.Gagne, P., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Rethinking binary conceptions of social con-

structions: Transgender experiences of gender and sexuality. Advances in Gen-der Research, 3, 73-102.

Gagnon, J. H., & Parker, R. G. (1995). Conceiving sexuality. In R. G. Parker & J. H.Gagnon (Eds.), Conceiving sexuality: Approaches to sex research in a postmod-ern world (pp. 3-16). New York: Routledge.

Garber, M. (1995). Vice versa. New York: Simon & Schuster.Gerson, K. (1993). No man’s land: Men’s changing commitments to family and


318

work. New York: Basic.Gibbs, J. T. (1992). Young black males in America: Endangered, embittered, and

embattled. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp. 50-66).New York: Macmillan.

Gilbert, L. A. (1993). Two-careers/one family: The promise of gender equality.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity.New Haven: Yale University Press.

Goldberg, H. (1976). The hazards of being male: Surviving the myth of masculineprivilege. New York: Signet Press.

Gross, A. E. (1992). The male role and heterosexual behavior. In M. S. Kimmel &M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp. 424-432). New York: Macmillan.

Guidano, V. F. (1991). The self in process: Toward a post-rationalist psychotherapy.New York: Guilford Press.

Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. (1988). The meaning of difference: Gender the-ory, postmodernism, and psychology. American Psychologist, 43, 455-464.

Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. (1990). Making a difference: Psychology and theconstruction of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Harrison, J., Chin, J., & Ficarrotto, T. (1992). Warning: Masculinity may be danger-ous to your health. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp.271-285). New York: Macmillan Press.

Kaufman, M. (1992). The construction of masculinity and the triad of men’s vio-lence. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp. 28-50). NewYork: Macmillan.

Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation. New York: Norton.Kessler, S. (1990). The medical construction of gender: Case management of inter-

sexed infants. Signs, 16, 3-27.Kimmel, M. S. (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York: Free

Press.Kimmel, M. S., & Messner, M. A. (Eds.). (1992). Men’s lives. New York: Macmil-

lan.Lancaster, R. N. (1995). “That we should all turn queer?” Homosexual stigma in the

making of manhood and the breaking of a revolution in Nicaragua. In R. G.Parker & J. H. Gagnon (Eds.), Conceiving sexuality: Approaches to sexresearch in a postmodern world (pp. 135-156). New York: Routledge.

Lehne, G. K. (1992). Homophobia among men. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner(Eds.), Men’s lives (pp. 381-394). New York: Macmillan.

Levant, R. F. (1995). Toward the reconstruction of masculinity. In R. F. Levant &W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 229-251). New York: Basic.

Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.McAdams, D. P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Personological

inquiries into identity. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of

the self. New York: W. Morrow.McLean, C. (1996). The politics of men’s pain. In C. McLean, M. Carey, & C.

White (Eds.), Men’s ways of being (pp. 11-28). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.


319

Money, J. (1990). Agenda and credenda of the Kinsey scale. In D. P. McWhirter, S.A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Conceptsof sexual orientation (pp. 41-60). New York: Oxford University Press.

Money, J. (1994). The concept of gender identity disorder in childhood and adoles-cence after 39 years. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 20(3), 163-177.

Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family socialization and interaction process.Riverside, NJ: Free Press.

Pillard, R. C. (1990). The Kinsey scale: Is it familiar? In D. P. McWhirter, S. A.Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts ofsexual orientation (pp. 88-100). New York: Oxford University Press.

Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. NewYork: G. P. Putnam.

Pittman, F. S. (1993). Man enough: Fathers, sons, and the search for masculinity.New York: G. P. Putnam.

Pleck, J. H. (1992). Men’s power with women, other men, and society: A men’smovement analysis. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp.19-27). New York: Macmillan.

Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. NewYork: Henry Holt.

Real, T. (1997). I don’t want to talk about it: Overcoming the secret legacy of maledepression. New York: Scribner.

Robinson, P. (1976). The modernization of sex. New York: Harper and Row.Ronai, C. R., Feagin, J. R., & Zsembik, B. A. (Eds.). (1997). Everyday sexism: In the

third millennium. New York: Routledge.Rosen, H. (1996). Meaning-making narratives: Foundations for constructivist and

social constructionist psychotherapies. In H. Rosen & T. K. Kuehlwein (Eds.),Constructing realities: Meaning-making perspectives for psychotherapists (pp.3-51). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rubin, L. B., (1992). The approach-avoidance dance: Men, women, and intimacy.In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp. 335-340). NewYork: Macmillan Press.

Sattel, J. W. (1992). The inexpressive male: Tragedy or sexual politics? In M. S.Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp. 350-358). New York:Macmillan Press.

Schwartz, P., & Rutter, V. (1998). The gender of sexuality. Thousand Oaks, CA:Pine Forge.

Smith, G. (1996). Dichotomies in the making of men. In C. McLean, M. Carey, & C.White (Eds.), Men’s ways of being (pp. 29-49). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Stoller, R. J., & Herdt, G. H. (1985). Theories of origins of male homosexuality.Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 399-404.

Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1995). Masculinity ideologies: A review ofresearch instrumentation on men and masculinities. In R. F. Levant & W. S.Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 129-163). New York: Basic.

Thompson, S. (1995). Going all the way: Teenage girl’s tales of sex, romance, andpregnancy. New York: Hill and Wang.

Usser, J. M. (1997). Fantasies of femininity: Reframing the boundaries of sex. New


320

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Vance, C. S. (Ed.). (1984). Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality.

Boston: Routledge & K. Paul.Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem

formation and problem resolution. New York: Norton Press.Weeks, J. (1995). History, desire, and identities. In R. G. Parker & J. H. Gagnon

(Eds.), Conceiving sexuality: Approaches to sex research in a postmodern world(pp. 33-50). New York: Routledge Press.

Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Whalen, R. E., Geary, D. C., & Johnson, F. (1990). Models of sexuality. In D. P.McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexu-ality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 61-70). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

White, K. (1993). The first sexual revolution: The emergence of male heterosexualityin modern America. New York: New York University Press.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York:Norton Press.

White, M. (1996). Men’s culture, the men’s movement, and the constitution ofmen’s lives. In C. McLean, M. Carey, & C. White (Eds.), Men’s ways of being(pp. 163-193). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Williams, L. (1989). Hardcore: Power, pleasure and the “Frenzy of the Visible.”Berkeley: University of California Press.

Zalduondo, B., & Bernard, M. J. (1995). Meanings and consequences of sexual-eco-nomic exchange: Gender, poverty, and sexual risk behavior in urban Haiti. In R.G. Parker & J. H. Gagnon (Eds.), Conceiving sexuality: Approaches to sexresearch in a postmodern world (pp. 157-180). New York: Routledge.

Zilbergeld, B. (1999). The new male sexuality (Rev. ed.). New York: Bantam.


321

The Men’s Studies Press proudly announces the publication of a unique anddeeply personal analysis of father-son relationships.

Legacy: A Conversation with Dadby Ross E. Gray and Claire M. Gray

Contents

• Slipped the Surly Bonds of Earth: How Dad and I Came To Be Writing This• The Hum of His Father’s Fly Rod: Boys Growing Up To Be Men• Up Studying Each Morning: The Dangerous Pursuit of Success• What He Might Have Been: Living Under the Shadow Of Failure• The Summer That Came and Went: Life Lost Through Service• A Young Man and Two Boys on the Trail: The Dance of Fathering• And Then She Comes: The Terrors of Loving a Woman• He Could Not Let a Girl Spoil His Plans: The Exercising of Men’s Power• He Grinned a Wide Generous Grin: Friendships Among Men• Lines of Lifeless Frozen Boxcars: Dealing with Grief and Depression• Moving in For the Kill: Getting Angry and Aggressive• If You’re Not Careful You’ll Be Sick: Navigating Through Belief Systems• Both Fiction and Fact: Reflections on Dad’s and My Collaborative Efforts• Notes and Selected Bibliography

“I read Legacy in one sitting. It is beautifully written, evocative, and engaging. I felt theauthor’s honesty and sincerity as he let me enter into his attempt to grapple with the importantemotional issues in his life. As the author creatively interacts with the voice of his father, andshows us his relationships with his partner and male friends, he shows us a vulnerable andemotional as well as a cognitively aware and analytically astute self. This work offersvaluable insights into gender issues and provides a male perspective on the lived experienceof masculinity.”

— Carolyn Ellis, Professor of Communication and Sociology, University of South Florida

“Ross Gray takes us on a courageous and insightful journey into the shadows of his past.Through conversations with his deceased father, Gray offers insight into man’s complex rolesas father, friend, son, and lover. His compelling story of a son’s endeavor to step out of hisfather’s shadow enriches us and reveals truths about our own struggles to be free. Legacy is abook for anyone who wants to come to a better understanding of themselves and the men intheir lives. It is an intensely open and intimate look into masculinity. Truly a book with heart!”

— Jim Bedard, author of Lotus in the Fire: The Healing Power of Zen

“Ross Gray’s Legacy: A Conversation with Dad is an honest, courageous, and sometimespainful self reflection on the powerful imprint of a father who suffered from depression andcommitted suicide. The unique format of father-son dialogue is created by exploring thefather’s life through excerpts from his unpublished novel. The themes around masculinitytouch common chords that ring clearly through the common life experiences of father and son.The book offers no easy answers to these issues, but the clarity and depth of their descriptionprovides comfort to men who worry that they might be alone in facing this struggle.”

— Glen Palm, Professor of Child and Family Studies, St. Cloud State University(Minnesota),

and editor of Working With Fathers

Available at quality bookstores or at www.mensstudies.com

Pessimism, Paralysis, and Possibility: Crisis-Points in Profeminism

AMANDA GOLDRICK-JONES

Centre for Academic Writing and Women’s StudiesUniversity of Winnipeg

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Has men’s anti-sexist or profeminist activism been following“a path from optimism to pessimism,” as Lynne Segal claims?An examination of documents produced by profeminist groupsin North America and Britain suggests that “crisis” (a state ofchange) may be a more helpful description of profeminismtoday. Within these documents, certain key or resonant termsillustrate conflicts that challenge idealized concepts of group“unity” and provide insights into attitudes surrounding theseconflicts. These conflicts and crises can destabilize “unity” tothe point where attempts to sustain centralized, politicallymotivated profeminist organizations like NOMAS are jeopar-dized. While this may be cause for pessimism, the crises expe-rienced by such groups may also be transformative, openingup possibilities for other forms of profeminist activism.

Key Words: rhetoric of profeminism/pro-feminism, profemi-nist discourse, anti-sexist men, Achilles Heel, NOMAS, Britishand American men’s movement

Lynne Segal, who has extensively documented men’s attempts to change them-selves, describes the history of work on masculinity “as following a path from opti-mism to pessimism” (quoted in Wetherell & Griffin, 1991, p. 387). At first glance,this bleak metaphor seems aptly to describe the history of men’s anti-sexist or pro-feminist1 activism within and outside North America. In the 1970s, women’s libera-tion was an inspiration for many men. Intrigued by the possibilities feminism offeredfor personal and political transformation, driven by a sense of justice to redress gen-

323

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Amanda Goldrick-Jones, Centre for AcademicWriting and Women’s Studies, University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba,Canada R3B 2E9 or [email protected].


der inequities, and maybe even a little jealous of women’s new-found sense ofexcitement and solidarity, profeminist men in the 1970s took on “the male sex role”as a major project. Documents produced by some of these newly fledged profeministgroups create a very strong impression of thriving and energetic anti-sexist activity:discussion groups, conferences, marches, events, newsletters, and performances withan anti-sexist theme—and strikingly, a sense of excitement, optimism, and “fun.”

Yet the same documents recording anti-sexist men’s “exciting” gatherings, dis-cussions, and activism emit early warning signs of ideological differences. InBritain, the optimism of the early 1970s soon gave way to fractious argumentsbetween anti-sexist and liberationist men’s groups, which by the early 1980s hadbecome sundered. In North America, the rhetoric of optimism and unity dominatedconference and organizational literature in the 1970s and early- to mid-1980s, butthe mood was fractured by discontent—by those wondering, for example, about therole of gay men, men of color, and working-class men in men’s anti-sexist organiza-tions. By the 1990s, the North American documents were speaking less of unity andmore of diffusion, or even of the disbanding of anti-sexist men’s groups or projects.

While all this may indeed justify pessimism, I suggest that “crisis” is a morehelpful concept for understanding where profeminism is now and where it may begoing. For the past several years, I have been analyzing documents produced by“Second Wave” profeminist groups in North America, Britain, and Australia, fromthe early 1970s to the end of the 1990s. Among the questions I’ve been asking are:Why and how do profeminist men identify with feminism? What motivates men todo feminist work? How do they build productive relations with feminist women’sgroups? My analysis confirms the larger sense that profeminist men’s groups are injeopardy, and that many profeminists are more pessimistic now than they were in the1980s. But it’s also important to remember that “crisis” means a vitally importantstage in the progress of anything, a state of affairs in which a decisive change forbetter or worse is imminent. From that standpoint, it would be surprising if profemi-nism as a mass movement hadn’t experienced a variety of crises by now.

Britain and the United States saw a great deal of profeminist activism in theearly 1970s, motivated largely by feminism and discontent with traditional mascu-line roles. In both these countries (as well as in Canada and Australia), profeministgroups have experienced major crises: challenging the concept that anti-sexist menmust rally under unified discourses, as well as changing the shape of profeministpolitics and activism. My main purpose here is to illustrate some of these crisis-points by presenting highlights of an ongoing rhetorical analysis of selected docu-ments produced by and about primarily British and American profeminist groups.“Rhetoric” is a broad term, but the central concept I am working with here is thattexts convey not only the ideas but the social values of the writer or group, and thatcertain rhetorical structures issue a powerful invitation to the reader to identify withand share those values (most documents I use were created by groups or collectivesacting as a single writer).

The rhetorical structures I have found most useful for gaining insights intogroup values are not classical lines of argument but resonant terms or phrases. Theseterms are never considered in isolation; their meanings depend on particular histori-cal, social, or cultural contexts. For example, if you were speaking to a group of

324

PESSIMISM, PARALYSIS, AND POSSIBILITY

Canadian feminists, you need only mention the term “December 6” to evoke power-ful images of the 1989 Montreal massacre. Resonant terms are more likely to createidentification when they recur over a range of documents, or act as “magnets” thatattract other value-laden concepts, or are juxtaposed with a negative counterpart sig-nifying conflict with or opposition to a concept. Far from being mere words that“signify nothing,” language is a form of symbolic action that can and does motivatepractical action.2

Because so many profeminist organizations have experienced internal conflict, Ifound it useful to focus on documents and excerpts that use or indirectly evoke theconcept of “unity” as an invitation and motive to do profeminist work. I selecteddocuments by looking for key terms and relationships suggesting attitudes, eitherpositive or negative, about the concept of a group having a “unified” profeministmandate or identity.3 While a detailed analysis of specific terms and interrelation-ships is useful for rhetorical critics, my emphasis here is on placing the “unity” termsin broader social and historical contexts to highlight changing attitudes about pro-feminist goals and activism. In effect, the “unity” terms tell stories about crisis andchange.

I should say something about my own motives for analyzing profeminist dis-course. As a woman who has enjoyed good professional and personal relationshipswith men, I have long believed—as do many feminists—that women and men canwork together, and that fighting gender injustice isn’t only women’s work. Indeed, inthe Western world, men have been engaging with feminist projects for over 200years (for American perspectives, see Kimmel & Mossmiller, 1992), and there isevery reason in the world for that tradition to continue. As Gloria Steinem (1992)puts it, “Make no mistake about it. Women want a men’s movement. We are literallydying for it” (p. v). Yet it’s equally important to view strategies of men “in” femi-nism through a critical feminist lens. In academic circles, the idea of men “in” femi-nism has been increasingly problematized since Jardine and Smith (1987), butwhether men are “in” or “with” feminism, it is clear that men’s involvement must gofar beyond lip service: the fact that more men nowadays agree that feminism is agood thing does not mean that social and behavioral transformation has beenachieved (also see Gilding, 1997).

THE EARLY 1970s:“THE MALE RESPONSE TO WOMEN’S LIBERATION”

Among the most resonant terms in writings by early Second-Wave liberationist andanti-sexist men are “excitement, fun, joy, liberation, women’s movement, andchange.” Taking on what was then considered “the interesting and exciting questionof the male response to women’s liberation…” (“Men’s,” 1971), a number of men’sgroups formed in Britain, the U.S., Canada, and Australia by the early 1970s. Allthese groups encouraged discussion, and many also took part in demonstrations,published radical newsletters, or organized conferences to explore what women’sliberation meant for men. In Britain, the first men’s groups had formed by 1971 as


325

… a response to feminism. Women were developing, and as theyfought to change their roles, some men felt pressure to change too…. There was liberation in the air and men wanted a part of that.(“What future?”, 1990)

Across the pond, the first of many Chicago Men’s Gatherings took place in 1973,emphasizing the liberatory possibilities of positive and healthy masculinities. Indeed,the 1974 Gathering was billed as a “Men’s Celebration” to forefront “the joy and funof uniting as men in new and exciting ways” (“Chicago,” 1974, p. 2). There wasgreat interest, articulated notably by Joseph Pleck (1974), in whether the new “sexrole theory” could help dismantle traditional concepts of masculinity. Pleck was aninvited speaker at what may have been the first Canadian profeminist conference atthe University of Waterloo in 1975. Taking their cue from women’s consciousness-raising (CR) practices, the conference authorized men-only sessions, reasoning: “Webelieve that the task ahead will be one of sex role liberation for both men andwomen, but that men talking with men plays an important part in this” (Waterloo,1975).

This energetic and generally positive outlook for profeminism in the early ’70sis expressed poignantly by a contributor to the newsletter Brother: A Forum for MenAgainst Sexism, who wrote, “I don’t believe I have ever felt so affected by a move-ment or a social development before in my life . . .” (“Men’s,” 1971). The sense ofdedication to a good cause was captured by a newsletter published jointly by theMen’s Awareness Network and the Chicago Men’s Gathering, which was “dedicatedto eliminating sexism, supporting the women’s movement, and changing men’sroles” (Editorial, 1976, p. i).

The frequent use of terms like “liberation” and “change”—often in the samebreath as concepts like “eliminating sexism” and “the women’s movement”—indi-cates that many interested men were unified around the concept that feminism wasbeneficial for re-examining masculinity. References to “the women’s movement” notonly occur frequently but also are often linked to “men” and “the male sex role.” Theterms suggesting that feminism could also be a joyful and liberating experience formen are significant too, partly because they represent the zeitgeist of social changeand freedom, and partly because feminism served many men’s groups in the early1970s as motivator, inspiration, and unifying principle.

BRITAIN IN THE ’70s:THE ANTI-SEXIST/MEN’S LIBERATION WARS

While many men’s groups initially united around feminist concepts of “liberation”from sexism, in Britain the principle of building action-platforms around anti-sexismquickly became contested. Though many men’s groups had formed and severalnational conferences had taken place in Britain by the mid-1970s, not all groupswere equally supportive of feminism. John Rowan (1987), Mick Cooper (1991a),and Jonathan Rutherford (1992) all describe growing divisions among anti-sexist,liberationist, and pro-gay men at this time. The anti-sexist movement consistedmainly of men whose female partners or friends were active in the Women’s Libera-

326


tion Movement (Cooper, 1991a, p. 6; and D. Sheil, in a draft essay from the AchillesHeel archives, 1990). Some of these men’s groups attempted to integrate therapeuticand CR approaches with anti-sexist, often socialist discussions and conferences(Cooper, 1991a, p. 6). One notable example, a group called Red Therapy, flourishedfrom 1974 to 1977 with the goal of connecting personal with socialist and politicalissues (Rowan, 1987, p. 21). Also relying on CR models were “liberationist” men’sgroups, but they were less interested in anti-sexist activism and more intent onunderstanding masculinity, working toward self-improvement, and forging betterrelationships with other men.

Initially, British “anti-sexist” and “liberationist” men tried to work together,attempting unity through their common concern with understanding men’s lives. Butin 1980, differences in perspective over the personal and the political, creating ten-sions over the past several years, came dramatically to a head and eventually drovethese groups apart. This crisis was precipitated by a proposal drafted by anti-sexistmen for presentation and adoption at that year’s national men’s conference in Man-chester. This proposal asked delegates to endorse a set of “Ten Commitments” repre-senting men’s willingness to adopt feminist principles in their daily lives. To theanti-sexists, the Commitments4 represented an endorsement of the women’s move-ment as well as a call for men to change themselves. But many of the delegates feltthat adopting the Commitments would amount to an admission of male guilt. EvenJohn Rowan, who had been a member of Red Therapy, found the admonishing (andit must be admitted, occasionally self-righteous) tone of the Commitments very off-putting, comparing it to “a giant superego sitting on my shoulders shouting in my ear. . .” (as cited in Cooper, 1991a, p. 9l; also see Rowan, 1987, pp. 48-53). To make along story short, the motion to adopt the Commitments was defeated.

According to Cooper, after this conference the British anti-sexist/profeministmovement began to lose enthusiasm and clout, going into “a steep decline” after1982 (1991a, pp. 9-10), while the liberationist movement gained momentum. Rowanbelieves that the “Ten Commitments” event did some damage, but he argues that amore serious clash occurred in 1983 over whether anti-sexist men should explicitlyspell out their accountability to feminism. This conflict also precipitated a crisis ofmale guilt, which Rowan argues played a large role in paralyzing British profemi-nism (1987, pp. 50-53).

Looking at the key terms arising out of these discourses provides some insightsinto the major area of difference that so quickly fragmented the “unity” of the Britishmen’s movement in the 1970s: men’s relations with feminism. For the anti-sexists,terms like “commitment,” “challenge,” “women’s movement,” and “giving uppower” represented necessary points of personal and political engagement. However,liberationist men equated “commitment,” “accountable [to women],” and “giving uppower” with guilt, which, as Rowan argues, “simply paralyses men” (1987, p. 53);for Rowan, “paralysis” is a powerfully negative term. Essentially, if you were ananti-sexist man, “feminism” was a powerful motivator, a catalyst for action. But ifyou were a liberationist, “feminism” had the opposite effect. The same term had rad-ically different persuasive outcomes.

Gay liberation was another movement that also profoundly influenced and chal-lenged the unifying discourses of 1970s British profeminism. Gay men who “had


327

quite suddenly discovered their energy, their voice, their ability to fight back againstthe oppression which they felt they had for so long endured” (Sheil in an unpub-lished essay, 1990) looked toward the American Black Liberation movement as theirmodel. While these men considered themselves anti-sexist, it is perhaps not surpris-ing that many took a highly radical stance toward masculinity, including calling intoquestion men’s relationships with women. A piece in a magazine called BrothersAgainst Sexism took a 1974 national men’s conference by storm. Entitled “ComingOut is the Only Way Forward,” the article argued

If men are serious about being antisexist, then they must sacrificethe privileges they obtain from women and relate on a sexual levelexclusively with men . . . . Only when men are prepared to risktheir masculinity to the extent of becoming homosexual can amen’s movement challenge sexism in the way gay liberation has(as cited in Cooper, 1991a, p. 7).

At the 1974 conference, conflict over this position was intense. From a rhetoricalstandpoint, these gay activists’ emphasis on “sacrifice” was not a unifying term—infact may have been frightening—for many straight anti-sexist men. According toCooper’s history (1991a), several gay men walked out of the conference after accus-ing their straight counterparts of homophobia (p. 7). Cooper also notes that this eventset off a round of self-criticism among anti-sexist men, halting profeminist confer-ences and publications until the late 1970s. But in his analysis, the gay men’s criti-cisms were not far off-target. Cooper argues that by the late 1970s, British anti-sex-ism/profeminism

… was not challenging sexism…. The belief that in changing our-selves through consciousness-raising [men] were liberating womenwas delegitimized through an intense attack from an oppressedgroup. (p. 7)

Cooper’s choice of the word “challenge” is significant, for, as suggested above, theterm can be seen as an ongoing area of contention for British anti-sexist men. “Chal-lenge” asks the question: Are you trying hard enough to eliminate sexism? Instead ofengendering action, this question has brought many men back around to the issue ofguilt.

On the other hand, some men tried too hard and went madly off in all directions.At one point, British anti-sexist men’s relations with feminists were seriouslystrained after a men’s group began two projects in 1980 designed to support feministwomen’s campaigns through raising money and providing childcare (Cooper, 1991a,p. 9). In late 1981, both projects came into conflict with the women’s movementover a question of funding. According to Cooper’s account, the men withdrew fundsand volunteer childcare they had been willing to donate to a feminist conferencewhen the women said they preferred to use paid childcare workers. “This move infu-riated many women who felt that the men were using the money to control thewomen’s movement …” (Cooper, 1991a, p. 9). The men were stung by the women’s


328

criticism, and the projects soon “ground to a halt” (p. 9).This crisis illuminates another key concept, control, and the tensions surround-

ing it. In this case, “men’s control” is implicitly linked with the phrase “overwomen.” At what point does a set of profeminist actions or strategies become ameans of controlling feminism? Should men be offended if feminist women do notagree with their methods? It seems evident in this case that if any communicationtook place between the anti-sexist and feminist groups in 1980 and 1981, questionsof appropriate action, control, or power were not clearly addressed. This particularBritish crisis intimates how the question of men’s power in relation to women wouldincreasingly complicate debate about men’s place in relation to feminism.5

ACHILLES HEEL:LESSONS FROM THE PAST?

In 1978, Victor Seidler and other British anti-sexist men began publishing AchillesHeel, a self-described “radical men’s magazine” with a profeminist and socialist bent(Segal, 1997, p. 287; Seidler, 1991). Seidler’s description of the multiple goals ofthis magazine implies that a major purpose was to create a forum for dialogue amongmen and women, and to avoid the schisms among liberationist, gay, and straightanti-sexist men that were effectively fragmenting profeminism at organizational lev-els (1991, pp. 10-11).

Today, AH’s editorial stance reflects the fact that most British men’s groupshave shifted from anti-sexist activism to a broad-based concern with men’s “social,political or sexual” lives. For example, the magazine is one of the few men’s forumsgiving “equal time” to anti-sexist and mythopoetic perspectives. Often, writers try tobalance criticisms of mythopoetic groups with an exploration of their advantages(see notably Cooper, 1991b, pp. 30-31; Wolf-Light, 1994, pp. 16-17), and even their“value and beauty” (Wolf-Light, 1994, p. 17). However, other contributors to AHbelieve that British men’s groups need to adopt more strongly activist stances in sup-port of feminist principles. As one writer noted in a 1993 article on men’s groups,

… both the men’s groups I’ve been in have certainly spent sometime looking at sexism as an issue—how we’ve learnt it, how weact it out, how it makes us feel—but virtually no time doing any-thing practical about it …. When it comes to consistent and effec-tive challenges to my sexism, my experience is that these haveinvariably come from women rather from other men, inside or out-side of a men’s group …. (Baker, 1993, pp. 25-27)

Surveying the landscape of British men’s movements today, one can find dozens ofmen’s support groups, discussion groups, co-counseling groups, and resource centers(many of which are part of Britain’s Men for Change Network). But there is no pro-feminist/anti-sexist organization, at least not in the sense of an explicitly self-identi-fied group or campaign with a feminist agenda, such as Canada’s White RibbonCampaign or Australia’s Men Against Sexual Assault. In some respects, it looks as ifthe “liberationists” have taken over. Or, as Mick Cooper (personal communication,


329

January 21, 1998) thinks could be the case, profeminist men are “just getting on withit,” listening to and supporting women in a “quieter” way, without grandioseattempts to persuade the masses, and with less risk of conflict. It remains to be seenwhether this “quiet” approach will be more successful than political activism inachieving gender justice.

AMERICAN PROFEMINISM IN THE 1970s AND ’80s:REPRESENTATION AND CONTRADICTION

As in Britain, profeminist groups in the U.S. also found it difficult to unite and findcommon cause simply because they were all men. A major issue troubling Americanprofeminist groups from the 1970s well into the 1990s was how profeminism couldbe adequately represented by mainly white, middle-class, and predominantly straightmen. The idea that profeminists were a privileged group clearly created dissonanceamong those enjoying the privileges. In some cases, this discomfort or guilt loomedlarger than the original goals of ending sexism and patriarchy. As a Berkeley men’snewsletter noted in the early 1970s,

It seems to us that the so-called men’s movement has not been ableto sustain very much organized activity or energy because of theknotty contradictions in its base (mostly white, middle-classstraight men) and its process (how critically or supportively thesemen relate to each other). (Berkeley, 1973)

In their efforts to create and sustain a national U.S. profeminist organization thatwould fairly represent a wide range of men, profeminists have experienced crisesaround the concept of “unity.” The idea of a national group had been approved unan-imously at the 1977 Men & Masculinity conference. Yet, though the motion wasreaffirmed in 1978, the initial plenary sessions and task force meetings of this proto-organization were, according to a draft 1992 report by Tom Mossmiller, “wreckedwith dissension and ended in shambles.” It would be four more years until Americanprofeminists agreed on the structure and goals of a national profeminist organization,signaled publicly by the official launch of the National Organization for Men in1982. Media and other commentators’ descriptions of NOM’s 1983 Open Forum inNew York create uplifting images of a unified and optimistic profeminist movementin the U.S. The organization’s press conference statement, presented by NOM presi-dent Bob Brannon and later printed in the NOM newsletter Brother, featured thissentence in large type:

. . . there has never before been an organized national movementof men with the breadth of concern, and the determination to bringabout social change, as the one we are launching today. (Brannon,1983, p. 5)

According to another press release issued after the Open Forum, “Feminist groupswere well-represented, and expressed their warm support for the new men’s organi-

330


zation. The National Organization for Women was represented . . .” (Anti-Sexist,1983, p. 1). Topics of the forum included gay politics and links to anti-sexist groups;black men against sexism and racism; and pressures to be a Real Man. According toan article in Brother published after the Forum:

As each of the men and women spoke, the sense of excitement andunderlying unity grew stronger and clearer, the ideological breadthand strength of the movement increasingly more apparent. . . . Sel-dom if ever had the growing men’s movement been so unified inspirit and purpose, or its goals so clearly and eloquently described.(“Anti-Sexist,” 1983, p. 2)

Terms like “excitement,” “unity/unified,” “strength,” “spirit,” and “purpose” evokethe shared sense of inspiration and possibilities arising out of the early 1970s docu-ments. Indeed, many documents describing the aims and projects of NOM (which in1984 changed its name to the National Organization for Changing Men—NOCM)implicitly reinforce the concept that the membership was unified around the transfor-mative goal of ending sexism. One major effect of this evangelical language—andparticularly the explicit references to “unity”—is to evoke the zeitgeist of the 1960sand 70s. Such language intends to persuade readers to remember their original socialactivist motives for forming profeminist groups.

The language of unity might also be seen as an attempt to defuse conflicts aroundorganizational structures and goals. The NOCM’s governance was fairly centralizedaround a core group of executive member-activists. This is hardly an unusual occur-rence in volunteer-run organizations, where the dedicated few often take on an inordi-nate number of tasks. In theory, NOCM had a variety of goals and recognized manydifferent constituencies, and these became the responsibility of various “task groups,”each headed by its own coordinator, who in turn reported to the executive. Taskgroups focused on groups such as black, gay, disabled, and Chicano men, and onissues such as violence against women and pornography. NOCM also had complexdecision-making policies based on feminist principles of dismantling hierarchy andachieving consensus.6 But throughout the 1980s, members and other commentatorsfrequently criticized NOCM’s organizational structure for failing to represent moremen. According to a memo written by one former executive member,

I am firm in the belief that the structure of our organization (asdetailed in the by-laws) is seriously flawed by … the omission ofany provisions for the creation of local chapters …. [T]he failureto have local chapters … doesn’t give us much in the way of amass, democratic organization. All we have is a highly-concen-trated elite of 18 National Council members without a representa-tive constituency talking to ourselves, and claiming to be leadersof a few hundred non-based members.7

Many conflicting accounts can be found about whether NOCM—which in 1990changed its name a second time to the National Organization of Men Against Sexism

331


(NOMAS)—was an inclusive, let alone unified, profeminist organization. MichaelMessner maintains that by the mid-1990s, the organization had integrated anti-racistwork to the point where it became “part of the political discourse of NOMAS,” suchthat more men of color were taking leadership roles in the organization (1997, p. 101).

However, a major crisis of representation focusing on race occurred with theorganization’s decision in 1991 to go ahead and hold the annual Men & Masculinityconference in Arizona after the Reverend Jesse Jackson and civil rights groups hadcalled for a tourism boycott of Arizona. That state had rescinded the new nationalholiday in memory of Martin Luther King. In response to NOMAS’s decision, notedradical profeminist John Stoltenberg (author of Refusing to Be a Man) resigned hislong-standing position as chair of the Ending Men’s Violence task group(Stoltenberg, 1997). Similarly, another former member saw NOMAS’s decision as asign of the organization’s “internal racism” as well as its “lack of commitment . . . tocombatting racism” (Parrish, 1992).

Shortly after this show of non-confidence, the image of NOMAS as committedto inclusivity and profeminism was again challenged by negative reactions to an arti-cle written by one of NOMAS’s founders, Jeff Beane. Published in the magazineChanging Men in August 1992, the article outlined Beane’s experiences as a gaymale teen in the late 1950s and early ’60s, and described a sexual encounter with ayounger boy. In that same issue was a discreet ad for the North American Man-BoyLove Association as well as an ad for an “exotic” magazine. The criticisms anddebates following immediately after (see Craft, 1993, pp. 18-23) called into questionNOMAS’s commitment to feminist principles. The bitterest critics accused theNOMAS leadership, which had initially defended this controversial Changing Menissue,8 not only of sanctioning pedophilia (Craft, 1993) but of using “Old Boy Net-work tactics” (Parrish, 1992) to avoid taking responsibility. In an attempt at damage-control, Changing Men published in its next issue a range of critical letters (“Letters,”1993) as well as “A Statement from the Editors and Publishers,” which among otherthings included an indictment of Beane’s article and an apology to those it offended:

… we now understand [Beane’s article] to be a first-degree sexualassault of a child by an older adolescent male (according to ourstate’s . . . and other states’ laws) …. We are very sorry that thesematerials in our last issue hurt or betrayed some of our readers,especially those who are survivors of sexual assault. (“Statement,”1993, p. 7)

And overly optimistically, as it turned out, that same “Statement” argued confidentlythat “Changing Men will emerge stronger for having accepted the challenge tochange our practices—in order to become more fully responsible to … the pro-femi-nist movement that sustains us and that we in turn hopefully nurture” (p. 8). But toomuch damage had been done to the credibility both of NOMAS and of ChangingMen, at least in the eyes of the Beane controversy critics. Indeed, by 1994, besetwith financial and other problems, Changing Men had ceased publication.

In the discourse surrounding this crisis, the term “commitment,” associated withprofeminist goals, arises frequently as a unifying and perhaps even idealized concept

332


that NOMAS lacked or had failed to maintain. Without strong signals of “commit-ment” beyond apologies or editorials, the ability of NOMAS to represent profeministinterests was called into question. For profeminist groups ranging from Canada’sWhite Ribbon Campaign to Australia’s Men Against Sexual Assault, “commitment”is a positive term, often synonymous with men taking responsibility for their actions.In the much earlier struggle over “the Ten Commitments” in Britain, “commitment”acted partly as a positive motivator, but for many men the term was also synony-mous with guilt, anger, and paralysis. In Britain, a perceived demand for “commit-ment”—implying an impossibly high standard of behavior—scared many men awayfrom taking overtly feminist stances on various issues. Contrarily, the Beane-NOMAS critics considered Beane’s article and the NAMBLA ad not only a celebra-tion of pedophilia and sexual exploitation but a sign of a profound lack of “commit-ment” to feminist values—even more seriously, a sign of disunity, of foundationscrumbling. The perceived lack of commitment and unity was considered a sufficientcause (and perhaps also excuse) for many feminist and profeminist supporters toabandon the organization.

Kenneth Clatterbaugh (1997), a historian of men’s movements, strongly impliesthat NOMAS’s crisis has also served to undermine the unity of American profemi-nism. The decline in NOMAS membership since the mid-1990s and the refusal ofsome members to run for NOMAS office indicates, in his view, “a weakening of theprofeminist movement” (p. 56). Effective 1996, delegates to the yearly Men & Mas-culinity conference, which NOMAS had sponsored, were given the option of nothaving to join NOMAS. Indeed, NOMAS in the late 1990s appeared to be an organi-zation in name only. In the year 2000, though, the outlook appeared to be improving.With a new website, a slightly revised organizational structure, the resurrection ofthe newsletter Brother, and its continuing involvement with Men & Masculinities,the Ending Men’s Violence Network, and the Men’s Studies Association, NOMASshows signs of rebounding.

FROM PESSIMISM TO POSSIBILITY:ALTERNATIVE PATHWAYS FOR PROFEMINISM?

Through examining how certain resonant terms convey attitudes to unity and conflictin various profeminist documents, it is possible to see how complex and contestedare the deceptively simple goals of eliminating sexism and liberating men. The crisesdiscussed here raise questions about the effectiveness and desirability of constructingdominant profeminist discourses—and indeed, even entire organizations—around“unifying” notions of what profeminism is or entails for men. Terms like commit-ment, accountability, and challenge, for example, are so likely to be contested thatthey are not always effective motivators of social action.

This analysis also raises questions about the effectiveness of another kind ofunity: that imposed by “national” or centralized organizations. Certainly by the endof the 1990s, NOMAS had ventured far down the path of pessimism. Other 1990sorganizational casualties include the Ontario-based Men’s Network for Change, oncea powerful sponsor of conferences and men’s anti-violence activities in centralCanada; Australia’s network of Men Against Sexual Assault (MASA) chapters—

333


now extant only in Melbourne; and Australia’s XY magazine, whose publication wassuspended in 1998. Countless other smaller profeminist groups have formed, flour-ished, and fallen since the 1970s.

Perhaps profeminists have been over-ambitious in expecting to change the atti-tudes of men across nations by creating organizations, setting up elaborate executivestructures, staging marches, and trying to sort out the best or worst ideologies byfighting intraorganizational political battles. Nor are activist feminists unfamiliarwith such conflicts: women’s groups from the U.S.’s NOW to Canada’s NationalAction Committee on the Status of Women have experienced similar ideological dif-ferences. It’s helpful to remember that feminist movements also have a history rivenwith conflict and crisis, from the political schisms between conservative and liberalFirst Wave feminists, to the “sex wars” of the 1980s, to fractures or near-fracturesover charges that feminism’s predominantly white and middle-class perspective hasbeen highly exclusionary. The effort to work through these conflicts has resulted insome organizational casualties, but this does not mean that feminists around theworld have ceased struggling to end women’s oppression. Similarly, the shrinking ordisbanding of larger profeminist organizations does not necessarily indicate that pro-feminists are a dying breed or that profeminist work is not being done.

And, indeed, when some projects die, others are born. At almost the same timeNOMAS was experiencing its upheavals, Canada’s White Ribbon Campaign wasgaining momentum as a national (and now global) vehicle for men protesting vio-lence against women. The WRC also experienced internal conflicts over issues ofcentralization and organizational structure; now, while still headquartered inToronto, much of the campaign’s work against male violence is done locally,through semi-autonomous chapters. In fact, as Robert Connell (1995) has argued,anti-sexist or profeminist work arguably should not be channeled through large, cen-trally organized groups. Rather than a “mass” men’s movement, Connell sees morepromise in what he calls “alliance politics,” in which “the project of social justicedepends on the overlapping of interests between different groups (rather than mobi-lization of one group around its common interest)” (p. 238). Bob Pease (1996), long-time profeminist activist and co-founder of MASA, also notes that “proposing a pro-feminist political strategy will not in itself politicize men.” Instead, he believesprofeminist men need to “talk to ‘ordinary’ men” and locate moral and ethical rea-sons for being profeminist within men’s “enlightened self-interests” (p. 306); inother words, work to ground profeminism within men’s daily experiences, as femi-nism is grounded (or should be) within women’s experiences. I interpret Pease’sargument as, among other things, a call for profeminists to rediscover for themselvesand other men the personal motivation and excitement that will make the work easierand the benefits more visible.

In this light, the near-death experiences of groups like NOMAS, the Men’s Net-work for Change, and MASA could represent transformation—a movement towardother possibilities. Men involved in these or similar organizations might see suchcrises as opportunities to rethink how profeminist work gets done. Indeed, many pos-itive models for men working against gender oppression exist worldwide. Here areonly a few examples:

334


• the Everyman Centre in Devon, U.K., which relies on feministprinciples to treat male violence. The Centre helps men and sup-ports their female partners through therapy and co-counseling,publishes articles and educational materials, and participates inpolitical events like International Women’s Week (Everyman,1997; Calvin Bell, personal communication, January 29, 1998;and Paul Wolf-Light, personal communication, January 30,1998).

• the Halifax-based group Men for Change, which was first formedas a male response to the massacre of 14 young women in Mon-treal in 1989. It seeks to combine “political accountability” tofeminism with “consciousness raising amongst members aboutthe dynamics of traditional ‘male culture.’” Members share theirfeelings and reflect on their experiences as men in small support-ive groups and on retreats (“Men,” 1991). At the same time,members hold public meetings, speak at schools and communitycenters, and have created a “Healthy Relationships Violence-Pre-vention Curriculum” package, now being piloted in some Cana-dian high schools.

• the Men’s Resources Connection of Massachusetts, which cele-brated its 15th anniversary in 1998. Founded in 1983, the MRCsought to raise men’s awareness of male violence and relatedissues through consciousness-raising and political events. Whilenot as overtly political as Men for Change, the MRC continues towork against violence with a combination of men’s supportgroups and community events—including a youth education pro-gram designed to raise awareness of gender stereotyping andencourage mutual respect.

• the White Ribbon Campaign, which began in Toronto in 1991and, like Men for Change, took as its catalyst the Montreal mas-sacre of 1989. Through its yearly “white ribbon week” eachNovember, this charitable group raises funds for organizationslike the Canadian Women’s Foundation; has cooperated with theYWCA of Canada’s anti-violence campaign; works with busi-nesses and unions to distribute white ribbons and solicit dona-tions; and creates and distributes educational resources.

• Australia’s Men Against Sexual Assault, which initiated the firstWhite Ribbon Campaign outside of Canada in 1992. While allbut one chapter has folded since then, the Melbourne group con-tinues to meet and work on profeminist projects, including ananti-violence educational package completed in 1999.

• Achilles Heel: the radical men’s magazine, which continues topublish articles exploring masculinities from a variety of non-sexist perspectives, and to encourage dialogue between womenand men.

335


• The World Wide Web, also a promising environment. Its dozensof profeminist or related sites are a bit reminiscent of the originalsmall men’s gatherings. Unlike the little newsletters of the ’ 70s,these sites are instantly available to an increasing number ofresearchers and activists worldwide. While computer access is stillmainly the province of white, educated English-speakers, the Weboffers some potential for new forms of grassroots profeminism.

Though there are no guarantees these particular projects and organizations will stillexist by the time you are reading this article, I see some cause for optimism that pro-feminist work will continue to be done in a variety of different ways and in manydifferent locations: schools, community centres, workplaces and union shops, gro-cery and clothing stores, in living rooms, and, of course, through conferences andpublications—whether live, in print, or virtual. Little of this work will be reported inthe papers, and none of it (I predict, though I hope to be wrong) will persuade tens ofthousands of men to gather in football stadiums—a feat accomplished by the evan-gelical Promise Keepers. While many profeminist efforts will remain unsung, menwho believe in feminism need to ensure that, as much as possible, others know aboutand benefit from their work.

My brief analysis of “unity” terms arising in some profeminist writings hashighlighted only a few of the many tensions between an idealistic, unified vision ofgender equality and the enormous differences among activist men’s ideologies andexperiences that problematize this seemingly simple concept. Yet the resulting con-flicts, serious though they are, do not justify a pessimistic conclusion about the deathof profeminism. If “crisis” means “change,” then these crises might—and perhapsshould—be seen as opportunities for profeminist men to explore other, more creativeways of doing this work and motivating others to participate. What symbolic andpractical acts might be involved? Any and all that integrate profeminist ideas intodaily life and make them accessible. Any that nurture dialogue and critical self-reflection about gender issues; encourage men and boys to talk and think about howfeminism can benefit them; recognize and respect differences among men’s experi-ences and perspectives; encourage men to listen to and learn from women, othermen, and children; maintain men’s levels of energy and excitement about profemi-nist work; acknowledge men’s role in perpetrating sexism but move beyond guilttoward action; and support the practical, everyday work women do, moving us all afew steps closer toward equality.

NOTES

1. Many (though not all) men who ground their personal lives or political actson feminist principles prefer to call themselves “pro(-)feminists,” spelled with orwithout a hyphen, rather than “feminists.” Australian profeminist Michael Floodexplains: “The term ‘pro-feminist’ is almost equivalent to ‘anti-sexist,’ and I oftenuse the two terms interchangeably. But I like the term pro-feminism because it sug-gests an explicit and ongoing commitment to support feminism. Without this, menmay drift towards an understanding of sexism that neglects men’s power over

336


women” (1993-94). According to American profeminist Harry Brod, the hyphenatedterm is favored by supportive men “who believe feminism to be essentially of, by,and for women” (1998, p. 207). While Brod respects this viewpoint, he himselfprefers “profeminism,” which speaks of “a developing feminist politics of, by, andfor men” and a willingness to “fully commit ourselves to eliminating patriarchy” (p.208). Although I don’t think supportive men should go out of their way to avoid call-ing themselves “feminist,” I acknowledge these arguments and preferences and usethe term “profeminist” (without the hyphen for simplicity’s sake).

2. I derive this principle from the work of Kenneth Burke, literary critic andphilosopher of language. Burke acknowledged there are differences between “sym-bolic” and “practical” acts, but argued that the actions and emotions evoked by dis-course are “the dancing of an attitude” in which “the whole body may finallybecome involved” (1941, p. 9). Complementing the principle that language is sym-bolic action is Burke’s method of finding and “clustering” key terms in discourses(for details, see Burke [1937] as well as Rueckert [1982] and Foss [1996]). I foundthis method of clustering terms very helpful for analyzing the strategies used byCanada’s profeminist White Ribbon Campaign in building good relations with femi-nist activist groups (Goldrick-Jones, 1996).

3. I have also interviewed some profeminists as part of a larger project than thisone. Interestingly, though the interviewees often corroborated the “official” docu-ments, at times they also suggested a different story, or counter-discourse.

4. “Notes and riders” forming the Ten Commitments can be found in Rowan(1987, p. 49).

5. By the mid-1980s, feminists and profeminists in Britain, North America, andAustralia were raising serious concerns about men’s actions, motives, and even theirright to be “in” a form of transformative social activism rooted in women’s, notmen’s, lived experience. As Michael Kimmel argues, “to be a feminist requires . . .the felt experience of oppression” on the basis of gender (Kimmel & Mossmiller,1992, p. 3). Though I will not be discussing the details of this debate, whichextended well into the 1990s, the issues are well represented in such diverse sourcesas Jardine and Smith (Eds.), Men in Feminism (1987); Marcus, “Australian womenand feminist men” (1988); Williams, “Men in feminism” (1990); and Porter (Ed.),Between Men and Feminism (1992).

6. One NOCM document (undated) proposes a “consensus decision makingprocess” represented by a four-level flowchart. There are detailed analyses of levelsof concerns that could arise in decision-making: “minor concerns,” “reservations,”“non-support,” and “blocking concerns.” While consensus is emphasized, somereaders might be forgiven (I hope I will be) for interpreting the various stages andlevels as convoluted and hard to access.

7. A number of NOCM memos and documents discuss the executive members’workload and problems with the organizational structure. These and many other doc-uments, some of which are unpublished or in draft form, were donated by formermembers to the Changing Men’s Collection, part of the Michigan State University’sSpecial Collections Division. I am profoundly grateful to Ed Barton, curator of thiscollection, for all his help and support during and after my visit to this collection inJuly1998.

337


8. Changing Men was an independent magazine, not an organ of NOMAS; how-ever, articles about NOMAS or written by NOMAS members appeared frequently.

REFERENCES

Anti-sexist men’s forum: Success! (1983, Summer). Brother: The NewsQuarterly ofthe National Organization for Men, pp. 1-2.

Baker, P. (1993, Summer). Navel-gazing or world-changing? Achilles Heel: TheRadical Men’s Magazine, pp. 25-27.

Berkeley Brother. (1973). About us. Brother: A forum for men against sexism.Berkeley.

Brannon, R. (1983, Summer). Press conference statement. Brother: The NewsQuar-terly of the National Organization for Men, pp. 5, 23.

Brod, H. (1998). To be a man, or not to be a man—that is the feminist question. In T.Digby (Ed.), Men doing feminism (pp. 197-212). New York: Routledge.

Burke, K. (1937). Attitudes toward history (Vols. I & II, 2nd ed.). New York: NewRepublic.

Burke, K. (1941). The philosophy of literary form (1957, rev. ed.). New York: Vin-tage.

Chicago Men’s Gathering. (1974). Chicago Men’s Gathering Newsletter, p. 2.Clatterbaugh, K. (1997). Contemporary perspectives on masculinity: Men, women,

and politics in modern society (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview.Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Cooper, M. (1991a). A history of the men’s movement. Searching for the anti-sexist

man (pp. 1-14). London: Achilles Heel Publications.Cooper, M. (1991b, Autumn). A wander on the wild side. Achilles Heel: The Radi-

cal Men’s Magazine, pp. 28-31.Craft, N. (1993, Winter/Spring). So much slime, so little time: The transgression of

profeminism. Changing Men, pp. 18-23.Editorial. (1976). Men’s awareness network/Chicago men’s gathering newsletter, p. i.The Everyman Centre newsletter. (1997, August). Plymouth.Flood, M. (1993-94, Summer). Three principles for men. XY Magazine. Retrieved 26

January 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.coombs.anu.edu.au/~gorkin/XY/3princip.htm

Foss, S. K. (1996). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (2nd ed.).Prospect Heights: Waveland.

Gilding, M. (1997). Gender roles in contemporary Australia. In K. P. Hughes (Ed.),Contemporary Australian feminism (pp. 187-215). South Melbourne: Longman.

Goldrick-Jones, A. (1996). Men in a feminist forum: A rhetorical analysis of theWhite Ribbon Campaign against violence to women. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.

Jardine, A., & Smith, P. (Eds.). (1987). Men in feminism. New York: Routledge.Kimmel, M. S., & Mosmiller, T. E. (Eds.). (1992). Against the tide: Pro-feminist

men in the United States 1776-1990: A documentary history. Boston: BeaconPress.

Letters. (1993, Winter/Spring). Changing Men, pp. 3-6.

338


Marcus, J. (1988). Australian women and feminist men. Hecate: An InterdisciplinaryJournal of Women’s Liberation, XIV, 98-106.

Messner, M. A. (1997). Politics of masculinities: Men in movements. ThousandOaks: Sage.

Men meeting because we’re men. (1991). Pamphlet. Halifax: Men for Change. Men’s liberation: Responding to the women’s movement. (1971). Brother: A forum

for men against sexism. Berkeley.Parrish, G. (1992). Male supremacy and the men’s pro-feminist movement: The dubi-

ous legacy of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism. Retrieved 26January 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.igc.apc.org/nemesis/ACLU/oh!Brother/

Pease, B. (1996). Reforming men: Masculine subjectivities and the politics and prac-tices of profeminism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, La Trobe University,Bundoora, Australia.

Pleck, J. (1974). My male sex role—and ours. WIN, pp. 8-12.Porter, D. (Ed.). (1992). Between men and feminism. Routledge: London.Rowan, J. (1987). The horned god: Feminism and men as wounding and healing.

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Rueckert, W. H. (1982). Kenneth Burke and the drama of human relations (2nd ed.).

Berkeley: University of California Press.Rutherford, J. (1992). Men’s silences: Predicaments in masculinity. London: Rout-

ledge.Segal, L. (1997). Slow motion: Changing masculinities, changing men (Rev. ed.).

London: Virago.Seidler, V. J. (1991). Men, sexual politics, and socialism. In V. J. Seidler (Ed.), The

Achilles Heel reader (pp. 1-16). London: Routledge. Statement from the editors and publisher. (1993, Winter/Spring). Changing Men, pp.

7-8.Steinem, G. (1992.) Foreword. In K. L. Hagan (Ed.), Women respond to the men’s

movement: A feminist collection (pp. v-ix). San Francisco: Pandora.Stoltenberg, J. (1997). Re: [profem] male supremacy and the men’s pro-feminist

movement. Retrieved 26 January 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.igc.apc.org/nemesis/ACLU/oh!Brother

Waterloo Men’s Conference. (1975). Conference program. University of Waterloo,Ontario.

What future for men? (1990, Autumn). Achilles Heel: The radical men’s magazine.Retrieved 15 January 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.stejonda.demon.co.uk/achilles/leaderlo.html

Wetherell, M., & Griffin, C. (1991). Feminist psychology and the study of men andmasculinity. Part I: Assumptions and perspectives. Feminism and Psychology,1, 361-391.

Williams, L. R. (1990). Men in feminism. Women: A cultural review, 1, 63-65.Wolf-Light, P. (1994, Autumn). The shadow of Iron John. Achilles Heel: The Radi-

cal Men’s Magazine, pp. 14-17.

339


Doing the Work of Love Men & Commitment in Same-Sex Couples

by J. Michael Clark

Doing the Work of Love is a groundbreaking book that creates an important bridge betweenacademic work on men and sexuality and popular work on gay male relationships. Exploringintimate, coupled relationships among men, especially among gay men, Clark celebratesembodied, sensual, sexual goodness of men’s sexual relationships, while adamantly rejectingan “anything goes” approach to gay male sexuality or to sexuality in general. Clark proposesan ethics of sexual accountability in-relation as a middle ground between those who espouseanonymous multi-partnered sex as the crux of gay identity and those whose current sex panicresounds with sex-negativity.

Table of Contents

Foreword by James B. Nelson 1. Discerning the Ethical Landscape: A Theological

Introduction 2. Deghettoizing Gay Men’s Lives: Phenomenology

& Prophecy 3. Doing Gay Ethics: Sexuality & Relationships 4. Doing Men’s Studies: A Gay Perspective 5. Doing Our Homework: A Conversational Intermission 6. Doing the Work of Love: An Extended Case Study 7. Being In-Relation: Epilogue Appendix: In Celebration of our Tenth Anniversary Notes, Selected Bibliography, Subject/Name Index

J. Michael Clark is an academic “migrant worker,”teaching both freshman English and upper-levelreligious studies at various colleges and universitiesin Atlanta, where he lives with his spouse, BobMcNeir. Credited with pioneering truly unapologeticgay/lesbian liberation theology, Clark’s areas ofexpertise include gender and ecotheology, AIDS andtheodicy, gay men and men’s studies, and gay sexualethics. Clark has authored some forty articles and fourteen books.

“I found this a liberating book. Michael Clark personally knows what it is to take back fromheterosexist control the power to define his own identity. He knows and shows how lesbiansand other minorities have an important stake in liberating the gay ghetto.” —James B. Nelson, Professor Emeritus of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary of the TwinCities, author of The Intimate Connection: Male Sexuality, Masculine Spirituality and Body Theology

“In Doing the Work of Love, J. Michael Clark is writing in an area that clearly needs a greatdeal of work. His critique … contribute[s] significantly to the literature that is stretchingtoward new ways of creating more just and satisfying intimate relationships outside of sexistand heterosexist consciousness.” —Stephen B. Boyd, J. Allen Easley Professor of Religion, Wake Forest University, author of The MenWe Long to Be

ISBN: 0-9671794-0-8 (paperback); -1-6 (cloth) • $17.95 (paperback); $39.95 (cloth) • 172 pages Published by Men’s Studies Press (www.mensstudies.com) P.O. Box 32, Harriman, TN 37748Phone 423/369-2375 • Fax 423/369-1125 • Email: [email protected] Publication date: October 1999

Doingthe

work of

love

Men &commitment in same-sex

couples

Foreword by James B. Nelson,author of The Intimate Connection: Male Sexuality,

Masculinity Spirituality and Body Theology

by J. Michael Clark

The Playboy Rabbit Is Soft, Furry, and Cute: Is This Really the Symbol of Masculine

Dominance of Women?

JAMES K. BEGGAN

Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesUniversity of Louisville

AND

SCOTT T. ALLISON

Department of PsychologyUniversity of Richmond

Images presented in the mass media often contain subtextsthat perpetuate gender stereotypes. We suggest that in someinstances, underlying messages in mass media can operate tooppose, rather than reinforce, gender stereotypes. To examinethis hypothesis, we used the first ten years of Playboy magazineas our data source. We provide evidence that the magazineattempted to broaden the conceptualization of masculinity bydefining as the ideal an identity that incorporated a number ofcharacteristics traditionally associated with women. We iden-tify several processes by which Playboy accomplished this goal.These processes included co-opting the meaning of the word“playboy,” associating sexual success with the possession oftraditionally feminine traits, and using a rabbit as Playboy’ssymbol.

Key Words: masculinity, gender stereotypes, feminine traits,media symbols, mass media, Playboy magazine

341

The authors acknowledge the assistance of the staff of the Special Collections: Rare Books, University ofLouisville. In addition, the present work would not have been possible without access to the Playboy col-lection held by the University of Louisville.

Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to James K. Beggan, Department of Psycholog-ical and Brain Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292 or [email protected].


Mass media provide consumers with messages that convey meaning on a numberof levels (Hall, 1997; Kates & Shaw-Garlock, 1999; Mick & Buhl, 1992). Anassumption of work in this area is that, because they are unexpected and convey sub-tle bias, certain meanings are difficult to detect or refute. These subtexts have beenshown to exert an influence on judgment and behavior (e.g., Rudman & Borgida,1995; Signorielli, 1989), even when invalid. For example, it has been shown (e.g.,Bordo, 1993; Cash & Henry, 1995; Wiseman, Gray, Mosimann, & Ahrens, 1992)that unrealistic media images of female beauty can cause women to developunhealthy expectations about their own and others’ bodies.

One underlying meaning involves the reinforcement of stereotype-based expec-tations about men and women (Bordo, 1993; Douglas, 1994; Hirschman & Thomp-son, 1997; Richins, 1991; Wolf, 1991). Even when media do not appear to have aclear reason for the reinforcement of stereotypes, there is evidence that such instanti-ations occur. For example, teen magazines tend to portray female characters whorequire assistance in order to solve their problems (Peirce, 1993). In music videos,women display subservient behaviors and men display aggressive, dominant behav-iors (Sommer-Flanagan, Sommer-Flanagan, & Davis, 1993). A greater proportion ofmen relative to women are presented in television commercials as possessing identi-fiable occupations (Allan & Coltrane, 1996).

In our analysis, we would like to consider the extent to which a medium maypresent messages that undermine, rather than reinforce, stereotypes about men andwomen. Moreover, we would like to entertain the possibility that even in a mediumwith a seemingly simple agenda regarding the behavior of men and women, theremay appear seditious messages that oppose the apparent agenda. We feel that withrare exception (e.g., Beggan, Gagné, & Allison, 2000), this perspective has beenignored by social scientists.

CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF GENDER STEREOTYPES IN PLAYBOY

Most social critics would agree that Playboy magazine has had an important influ-ence on societal processes in the latter half of the twentieth century (e.g., Talese,1980). Much of the critical analysis Playboy magazine has received can be conceptu-alized in terms of the analysis of power dynamics between men and women(D’Emilio & Freedman, 1997). Ehrenreich (1983) suggested that the magazineencouraged the males’ flight from responsibility by implying that men and womenhad incompatible goals with regard to commitment and marriage. According to femi-nist and pro-feminist writers (e.g., Brod, 1988; Brooks, 1995; Dworkin, 1988; May,1969), the visual and written images of women presented in Playboy degradewomen. By this argument, then, exposure to these images encourages men to per-ceive themselves as superior to women. Other authors (e.g., Brownmiller, 1991;Ewing, 1995; MacKinnon, 1986) have extended power dynamics to the point of sug-gesting that the written and visual images in Playboy promote a rape culture that isboth misogynistic and violent.

Empirical analyses of Playboy magazine have failed to provide clear evidenceof these dominance themes. For example, an analysis (Scott & Cuvelier, 1987) ofviolence in cartoons and pictorials in Playboy from 1954 to 1983 indicated that

342

JAMES K. BEGGAN AND SCOTT T. ALLISON

depictions of violence were rare. Only 2.86 violent cartoons and .78 violent pictori-als appeared per 1000 pages. Malamuth and Spinner (1980) reported a similar lowproportion of violent imagery. Moreover, in an empirical analysis of the relationshipbetween pornography and rape, Gentry (1991) found no effect between consumptionof Playboy and rape rates, as reported in the Uniform Crime Reports.

In keeping with these latter studies, our analysis of Playboy magazine beginswith a simple observation. We note that one curious fact, apparently ignored bysocial scientists who have critically analyzed Playboy, is that the world-famous sym-bol of the magazine is a white rabbit. The Rabbit symbol is a stylized rabbit head inprofile, wearing a bow tie, most likely a tie that is part of a tuxedo. A Playboy tradi-tion that began in the second issue of the magazine is to include, in some form, animage of the Rabbit on the cover. The dominant incarnation in the early issues wasas a human-size, apparently sentient entity that often interacted with women in aromantic manner. The Rabbit has also appeared in a variety of other forms such as abend in a telephone cord or a reflection in a woman’s eye. Over the years, findingthe Rabbit symbol has become a contest for the readers. In some cases, the Rabbitwas so well hidden, as a knot in a bikini bottom or as a curl in a woman’s hair, thatreaders complained that they could not find the image.

In explaining the choice of a white rabbit, Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy,was quoted (Brady, 1974, p. 74), “Rabbits are the playboys of the animal world andthey have a sexy reputation.” A justification based on reproductive rates makes onlylimited sense in that the means to reproduction rather than actual reproduction itselfappears more consistent with the editorial focus of the magazine. The Playboy web-site (http://www.playboy.com) features a slightly different and more detailed expla-nation, “I selected a rabbit ... because of the humorous sexual connotation, andbecause he offered an image that was frisky and playful. I put him in a tuxedo to addthe idea of sophistication.... The notion of a rabbit dressed up in formal eveningattire struck me as charming, amusing and right.”

The synthesis of Playboy and the Rabbit is surprising when one recognizes thatthe dominant characteristics of a white rabbit are: soft, furry, cute, peaceful, fearful,and a prey rather than a predator. These are not the attributes expected as the symbolof a magazine with an ideology of the oppression of women. It is surprising that arabbit would be chosen as the symbol for a magazine geared toward men, given thatstereotypes about men (Bem, 1974; De Lisi & Soundranayagam, 1990; Street, Kim-mel, & Kromrey, 1995) revolve around themes such as power (achievement,assertiveness), sexuality (sexual aggression and skill), and intellect (logic and diffi-culty in expressing emotions). In fact, justified purely on the basis of stereotypes, awhite rabbit would be a more appropriate symbol of women rather than men. More-over, a number of the adjectives used by Hefner to describe the rabbit seem consis-tent with stereotypes about women. Terms such as “frisky,” “playful,” “charming,”and “amusing” could be just as readily used to describe how critics of Playboy havecharacterized the women who pose for Playboy as how Hugh Hefner has character-ized the Rabbit.

The goal of the present paper is to critically explore the observed inconsistencybetween the assumed ideology of Playboy and the image of the white Rabbit. IfPlayboy should be conceptualized as a media icon that reifies male values and prop-

343

THE PLAYBOY RABBIT IS SOFT, FURRY, AND CUTE

agates male stereotypes, including among them the domination of women, in theconstruction of a masculine identity, then how can these processes be reconciledwith the choice and consequences of a white rabbit as the primary symbol of themagazine? In the process of addressing this apparent inconsistency, we provide aninterpretation of Playboy at odds with prior critical analyses.

Our thesis is that, despite the attention paid to the presence of nude pictorials,Playboy’s central ideological focus was to sanction men’s attempts to expand theboundaries of legitimate self-conceptualization rather than to subjugate or controlwomen. Thus, the magazine should be viewed as a lens to better understand howmen think or would like to think about themselves, not how they think about andcreate identities for women. Playboy defined an identity for men, i.e., a masculineideal, which contained a component that went beyond stereotypes about the appro-priate characteristics of men. More specifically, this component depended heavily onthe contribution of attributes and interests more stereotypically associated withwomen than men. At a symbolic level, the merger of feminine attributes with themale identity was accomplished by the representation of the archetypal playboy as awhite rabbit. At an instrumental level, the merger occurred through the editorialmaterial presented in the magazine. Thus, the central gender theme in Playboy maga-zine was the integration, rather than polarization, of masculine and feminine repre-sentations.

Our analysis represents three potentially important contributions to the men’sstudies literature. The first contribution is to elaborate on the gender role strain para-digm (Pleck, 1981, 1995) in a way that might be viewed as counterintuitive. Accord-ing to this perspective, a significant proportion of men violate gender roles and expe-rience negative psychological consequences as a result (Levant, 1997). In ouranalysis, we propose a novel interpretation of the way Playboy may have shaped themale consciousness with regard to masculine identity. We suggest that the images ofthe male presented in Playboy reduced gender role strain by legitimizing a broaderdefinition of masculinity than would be encapsulated by stereotypic images of men.Moreover, this influence began in the early 1950s, prior to the occurrence of socialand political events (e.g., the women’s movement) that might have called into ques-tion the construction of a masculine ideal based on stereotypic representations.

A second contribution of our analysis is to promote a conceptualization of Play-boy magazine at odds with much of the existing scholarly work. Playboy has beenviewed as a mechanism of fraternal bonding which reinforces a stereotypic represen-tation of women as subservient, highly sexualized objects of pleasure (e.g., Ehrenre-ich, 1983). Because Playboy is read by a great many men, it is assumed that thesemen adopt an attitude toward women that is consistent with the theme of sexualityand dominance. Our analysis undercuts this conclusion by invalidating the premisethat Playboy degrades women. Rather than degrade women, Playboy emphasized theimportance of women and their values in defining a masculine identity. Thus, weassert that reading Playboy should not be viewed as synonymous with possessing anegative attitude toward women.

A final contribution of our analysis is to reinforce the idea that the values andattributes stereotypically associated with each gender may afford both benefits andcosts to the individuals who possess them (Brooks, 1990; Messner, 1992). When

344


Playboy elaborated on the definition of masculinity, it did so by drawing on certainattributes traditionally associated with women. The lesson to be learned from thisfact is that the optimal definition of a human being may be an androgynous one(Bem, 1974) that borrows freely from the best attributes of both men and women.

We use the theme of identity construction as our primary tool to interpret theformative years of Playboy magazine, which we operationally define as its first tenyears of existence. This initial period reflects the time during which Playboy wasmost active in defining a unique niche for itself and its readers.

It has been said that one of the great fibs of modern times, in relation to Playboymagazine, is the statement, “I buy it for the articles.” This statement is ironicbecause the unstated but implied truth is that the speaker buys the magazine to seepictures of naked women but uses the articles to disguise his true intentions. We rec-oncile the tension between text and pictures with the assertion of a third perspective(Ehrenreich, 1983). The presence of nude photographs of women served as the justi-fication for purchasing the magazine, which, in reality, had been acquired to rein-force a preferred identity, one at odds with many existing beliefs about the nature ofmasculinity, i.e., that the correct mode of operation for a man was to be strong,unemotional, and confident. According to the philosophy articulated in the maga-zine, a playboy was free to be much more colorful and broadly defined. Part of thePlayboy identity implied the freedom to admit weakness and vulnerabilities. Thisfreedom was especially prevalent in the “Playboy Advisor,” an advice column whichrequired men to reveal their soft underbellies of personal doubts as a prerequisite toobtaining assistance (Beggan et al., 2000).

In our analysis, we will explore the identity toward which Playboy suggested itsreaders should strive. We suggest that in addition to stereotypically masculine attrib-utes, the identity Playboy instantiated in men incorporated a number of traditionallyfeminine attributes. Thus, according to Playboy, a man achieved the masculine ideal,i.e., became a playboy, by becoming somewhat feminine. We recognize that thisproposition deviates from many of the prior analyses of Playboy magazine that haveappeared in the scholarly arena and contradicts notions about Playboy that haveappeared in American popular culture.

Playboy encouraged men to adopt stereotypically feminine abilities, such asbecoming a better conversationalist and learning how to cook sometimes elaboratemeals, through editorial features of the magazine. Other skills the magazine toutedincluded how to decorate one’s office or apartment and how to dress more fashion-ably. We suggest that the display of these skills would have caused men to appear topossess traits such as supportiveness, commitment, and sensitivity. Men were alsodirectly encouraged to develop feminine traits, such as compassion and sensitivity,through features such as the “Playboy Advisor” column.

We argue that Playboy portrayed women as having a great deal of control overmen’s lives. The magazine encouraged men to adopt attributes and learn skills thatwomen would find desirable so that women would find them more attractive. Thereis evidence (e.g., Clark & Reis, 1988) that an individual’s perceived attractiveness ispositively correlated with the extent to which he or she can contribute benefits to arelationship. Recent investigations (e.g., Buss, 1989; Feingold, 1990; Sprecher, Sul-livan, & Hatfield, 1994) of women’s preferences for sexual and marital partners have

345


found that women desire men who have potential for resource acquisition. As such,women prefer men who are intelligent, strong, and ambitious, i.e., men with stereo-typically masculine attributes. In addition, however, women also express a prefer-ence for men who are supportive, expressive, sensitive, and committed, i.e., possessstereotypically feminine attributes. Thus, adopting these latter attributes would allowmen to be seen as more attractive to women. Although the intention of this approachwas to change to become more attractive to women, the implication, however, wasthat men should surrender sovereignty to women over how men should choose todefine themselves.

How did the assertion of a feminine component to a masculine identity comeabout in the pages of Playboy magazine? We identify several aspects of the maga-zine that contributed to this process. One means was to adopt the name Playboy andthen use several editorial features to carefully construct a meaning for the word. Asecond method was the choice of a rabbit as the symbol for the magazine. The thirdaspect was to promote a complex identity for the Rabbit through the way he was pre-sented on the magazines’ covers. A final aspect was to link sexual success with thepossession of the feminine traits advocated by the magazine.

ON BECOMING A PLAYBOY

The goal of identity construction appeared as early as Hugh Hefner’s initial editorialstatement in the first issue of Playboy in which he referred to the magazine as a“primer.” Thus, the intention to educate and socialize the reader was establishedfrom the very beginning. Previous authors have recognized Playboy’s efforts todefine a masculine identity for its readers. For example, in an early analysis, Cox(1965) argued that the success of the magazine was due less to its emphasis on sexthan to its emphasis on identity construction. Ehrenreich (1983) suggested that Play-boy represented an “attack” on the traditional male role. Readers recognized themagazine’s efforts in articulating an identity for them. Consider, for example, a letterpublished in the September 1959 issue. Reader Scott Mason, from Minot, NorthDakota, commented, “I like your voice. It’s my voice.” The unique contribution ofour analysis is to describe the seemingly paradoxical way in which Playboy assistedmen in the construction of a new and better masculine identity by suggesting thatthey adopt characteristics traditionally associated with women.

The name Playboy had implications for identity construction. The magazine wasabout being the particular kind of person referenced in the title. Playboy magazine,then, was a multi-dimensional snapshot that conveyed the essential features of theplayboy. The magazine established the directions along which the reader, a potentialplayboy, could develop and actualize the Playboy aspect of his self. Playboy inter-vened at the level of the individual and established the premise of a one-to-one rela-tionship with each reader. As such, the magazine acted as a surrogate older brotherwho took the reader under the collective wing of the magazine’s editorial staff andtaught him to become a playboy. The magazine, rather than other men, socialized thereader by providing advice on how to construct an identity as a playboy.

There is a classic story associated with the name Playboy. The initial title HughHefner chose was Stag Party. Shortly prior to publication, Hefner received a threat-

346


ening letter from the attorney representing the publishers of Stag, suggestinginfringement. Rather than run the risk of a legal battle, Hefner decided to change thename of his magazine. It is useful to speculate about the implications of the namePlayboy in comparison to the name Stag Party with regard to the construction of amasculine ideal. A stag party is a group process. With its homogeneous male compo-sition, a stag party becomes a possible site of male fraternal bonding (Curry, 1991;Hood, 1995; Katz, 1995). Fraternal bonding refers to the high degree of group cohe-sion that can result when men interact together and is often characterized by a strongreliance on stereotypes about both in-group and out-group members (Curry, 1991;Harrison, Chin, & Ficarrotto, 1995; Satel, 1976). In a stag party, identities are cre-ated and maintained as the result of a social interactionist process in the mutualnegotiation of identity. Fear of ostracism that accompanies fraternal bonding tends topromote a defensive posture with regard to the affirmation of identities. Thus, theprocess of identity negotiation is self-protective, conservative, and, as a result, buildson the safest common denominator, i.e., stereotypes. The dynamics of fraternalbonding promote group differentiation along gender lines and subsequent in-groupfavoritism (Tajfel, 1982). Women are unwelcome at stag parties, except in the lim-ited role as sex objects. They are incorporated into stag parties as strippers and pros-titutes. They may appear as images in pornographic movies. But the presence of awoman as a co-participant in a stag party contradicts its core concept. As such, a stagparty becomes an environment and process that reifies, for both men and women,identity as a stereotype.

The dynamics of the Playboy identity focused on each potential reader’s capac-ity for evolution and change toward a Playboy-defined masculine ideal. There is evi-dence (e.g., Tajfel, 1982; Turner, 1987) that people possess both a personal identityand a social identity. Social identity is derived from membership in various groups.A focus on an individual playboy rather than a stag party isolated the individual fromthe group and emphasized individual identity construction over group stereotypepromulgation. As such, pre-existing group norms, values, and beliefs became lesscentral in the definition of an identity. Once readers were distanced from these otheranchors, the magazine was free to impose a new reference, which it did through anumber of editorial features. To become a playboy required that the potential readerbecome exposed to and accept the messages conveyed by the magazine’s editorialcontent. Presumably, with more exposure to the magazine, each reader became betterschooled in the requirements of being a playboy. From this point of view, then, thesuccess of Playboy was based on its ability to short-circuit and undercut traditionalprocesses of fraternal bonding that promoted a social identity based on stereotypes.

How did someone become a playboy? How did the transformation occur? Andwhat was the role of women and their values in facilitating this transformation? Atthe most basic level, a person became a playboy by reading or, better yet, subscrib-ing to Playboy. More generally, then, a reader became a playboy by incorporatingthe Playboy philosophy into his own belief system. Although Hugh Hefner ulti-mately wrote a long tome, called the “Playboy Philosophy,” that was published ininstallments in the magazine, we suggest that there already existed an underlyingphilosophy embedded in the magazine. This implicit philosophy served as a guidefor the reader in the quest for a better, more playboy-like identity. Symbolically, as

347


we discuss later, the transformation into a playboy was accomplished by becomingRabbit-like.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION

Playboy magazine developed a self-referential quality that served as the means bywhich it defined a masculine ideal. In the first ten years of publication, the editorialstaff showed remarkable ingenuity in finding different ways to weave a definitionalcomponent into the magazine. The earliest method was in an unsigned editorial pub-lished in the first issue in which Hefner laid out his vision for the magazine.

Several regular features of the magazine were routinely used to prescribe imagesto readers of how they should appear. One way in which the magazine defined aplayboy was the full-page subscription ads that appeared starting in the second issue.These ads, usually placed on the inside back cover, were creative and did much tohelp the magazine achieve its self-appointed task of developing a consistent identityfor its readers.

A second regular feature with a self-defining component was the series ofadvertisements for the magazine that appeared under the heading “What Sort of ManReads Playboy?” This breed of ad first appeared in the February 1958 issue and fol-lowed a standard formula. The ads always depicted a man engaged in a pursuit con-sistent with the image of a playboy. Another aspect of the ads was the presence of awoman, either interacting directly with the playboy or watching from a distance. Ineither case, the ads communicated that the woman was romantically involved withthe playboy or would like to be. Thus, the ads suggested that adopting the Playboyperspective would yield sexual success. In later years, there was often a secondwoman whose presence indicated that the playboy was sufficiently attractive so as tobe the subject of rivalry among women. Advertising copy reflected the theme con-veyed in the photograph, but always included information regarding the extent towhich Playboy readers were educated, had expensive tastes in liquor and clothing,traveled for business, and so on.

The covers were a source of definitional messages for readers. As we discuss inmore detail below, the Rabbit images sent important messages about the nature of aplayboy. Perhaps the clearest example of how Playboy, the magazine, co-opted con-trol over the definition of playboy, the word, was the cover of the June 1961 issue.The cover appeared to be a page from a dictionary where the word “playboy” wasdefined.

The magazine also found other ways to include definitions of a playboy. Theresults of a reader survey conducted in the April 1955 issue painted a handsome pic-ture of the prototypical Playboy reader. In two different “Playboy Advisor” columns,definitions of a “gentleman” were presented. Certain cartoons provided a humorous,but still ideologically consistent, message that following the prescriptions of Playboymagazine would permit a reader to enhance his standing with women. For example,the August 1955 issue contained a cartoon with the theme of marital infidelity inwhich an issue of Playboy magazine was featured.

348


ASPECTS OF MASCULINE AND FEMININE IDENTITY

To justify the argument that Playboy encouraged adopting feminine attributes, it isnecessary to clearly identify those attributes that are considered masculine or femi-nine. Deaux and Lewis (1983) suggested that the breadth of gender stereotypes isquite large. They showed that gender stereotypes have four separate components:traits, role-defined behaviors, occupations, and physical characteristics. In our analy-sis, we focus on traits and role-defined behaviors. In an extensive investigation ofthe traits associated with men and women, Street et al. (1995) found that womenwere viewed as possessing traits associated with compassion, whereas men wereviewed as possessing traits associated with power, sexuality, and intellect. Otherresearchers (e.g., Bem, 1974) have reported similar patterns of results. Bem (1974)found, for example, that men are seen as strong, assertive, and self-reliant. Women,in contrast, are seen as affectionate, gentle, sensitive to the needs of others, andunderstanding.

Men and women are also thought to engage in different roles (Deaux, Winton,Crowley, & Lewis, 1985; Eckes, 1994; Edwards, 1992; England, 1992). Edwards(1992) found evidence for several distinct stereotyped roles for men: businessman,blue-collar worker, athlete, family man, and womanizer. Other researchers (e.g.,Deaux et al., 1985; England, 1992) found similar categories. Women’s role stereo-types included five separate categories (Deaux et al., 1985; Eckes, 1994): housewife/mother, sexy woman, career woman, athlete, and feminist.

Gender-based stereotypes are generally stable. Comparisons between 1972 and1988 (Bergen & Williams, 1991) and between 1957 and 1978 (Werner & LaRussa,1985) showed consistency in the way that men and women are perceived acrosstime. A large-scale study among 30 nations showed common characteristics even invery different cultural contexts (Williams & Best, 1990). Moreover, evidence (e.g.,Swim, 1994) also suggests that stereotypes about men and women do, in fact, con-tain a kernel of truth. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the stereotypes identi-fied in studies conducted across different time periods would reflect stereotypes thatoperated in the early 1950s, when Playboy was founded.

THE IRONIC MEANING OF PLAYBOY

When Hugh Hefner found out that he could not use the name Stag Party, he spent aweekend with his wife, Millie, and friend Eldon Sellers trying to decide on a replace-ment (Brady, 1974). According to Brady, Eldon Sellers suggested Playboy becausehe recalled an old automobile with that name. Hefner liked the name and the fact thatthe word “playboy” was obsolete. “That way we can make it suggest whatever themagazine becomes,” Hefner is reported to have said (Brady, 1974, p. 73).

The dictionary (e.g., Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 1983)defines a “playboy” as “a man who is carefree, gay, and fond of playing; specifi-cally, a well-to-do man who spends much time and energy to pleasure-seeking anddissipation.” It is worth noting that “dissipation” includes among its meanings theidea of squandering one’s life on excessive pleasure-seeking. A playboy, therefore,is someone who allows hedonism to consume too great a proportion of life. A play-

349


boy is harmless essentially but not taken seriously. In sum, then, being a playboycarries a somewhat negative connotation.

The magazine’s editorial staff elaborated freely in crafting a much more positivemeaning of the word. The negative connotation was excised and the range of posi-tive attributes increased to where the magazine’s definition of a playboy was theopposite of the dictionary definition. The attributes included in the various defini-tions of a playboy presented by the magazine were often consistent with stereotypesabout men and included characteristics such as strength, power, intellect, andassertiveness. As we will show in more detail below, however, some characteristicsattributed to playboys were consistent with stereotypes about women.

Subscription ads described Playboy and playboys in a variety of ways. A repre-sentative ad described Playboy as a “magazine that breaks the old taboos,” andimplied Playboy readers were free-thinkers and courageous. Early subscription adsdefined a playboy in relation to the characteristics of famous historic figures. In thisway, the magazine basked in the reflected glory (Cialdini, Borden, Thorne, Walker,Freeman, & Sloan, 1976) of these figures. One early ad was titled “Poor Playboy’sAlmanac” and included a drawing of Ben Franklin. The accompanying text citedFranklin’s “Advice on the Choice of a Mistress” and suggested that Playboy was“published for fellows very much like Ben.” Another ad compared the Playboyreader to Moliere and defined a Playboy reader as “a man of good humor, with abroad mind and a great capacity for pleasure; a sophisticated man; an aware man; aman of taste.” Other ads drew parallels between Playboy readers and Johann Sebast-ian Bach and Izaak Walton. By comparing Playboy readers to these historic figures,the magazine allowed its readers to feel more positive about themselves.

Perhaps the most important ad in terms of our analysis of identity constructionappeared in the April 1956 issue under the heading, “What is a Playboy?” A sketchof a man in a tweed jacket, cap, and smoking a cigarette accompanied the descrip-tion. The copy of the ad was:

What is a Playboy? Is he simply a wastrel, a ne’er-do-well, a fash-ionable bum? Far from it: he can be a sharp-minded young businessexecutive, a worker in the arts, a university professor, an architector engineer. He can be many things, providing he possesses a cer-tain point of view. He must see life not as a vale of tears, but as ahappy time; he must take joy in his work, without regarding it asthe end and all of living; he must be an alert man, an aware man, aman of taste, a man sensitive to pleasure, a man who—withoutacquiring the stigma of the voluptuary or dilettante—can live life tothe hilt. This is the sort of man we mean when we use the wordplayboy.

The meaning of “playboy” conveyed in this ad directly challenged the dictio-nary definition. The dictionary does in fact provide a meaning for “playboy” akin to“wastrel” or “fashionable bum” and indicates the word has a stigmatizing connota-tion. This ad asserted a radically different meaning for the word, and suggested that aplayboy was a highly skilled professional who successfully negotiated the thin line

350


between being a “lover of life” and a “waster of life.” According to the ad, a playboymanaged to avoid the negative slant endemic to the word.

Note that this ad, as well as others, associated a number of additional character-istics with the playboy, such as alertness, good taste, and awareness, which are notpresent in the dictionary definition. Equating being sophisticated with being a play-boy, absent from the dictionary definition, made the goal of being a playboy moreattractive and desirable. In fact, one subscription ad, using the dictionary motif thatappeared repeatedly in Playboy, defined the word “sophistication” in terms of beinga Playboy reader. The June 1961 cover included the definition, “A sporty fellow bentupon pleasure seeking; a man-about-town; a lover of life; a bon vivant.”

THE MASCULINE COMPONENT OF THE PLAYBOY IDENTITY

The masculine identity Playboy defined included a component that reflected existingstereotypes about men. Editorial features included coverage of automobiles, busi-ness, sports, and electronic equipment, standard topics of traditional interest to men.The “Playboy Advisor” also published letters that sometimes reinforced the stereo-typic sentiments of men (Beggan et al., 2000).

The “What Sort of Man Reads Playboy?” ads presented a great deal of informa-tion about the appropriate masculine identity, as defined by Playboy. These ads oftenechoed themes about masculinity consistent with stereotypes about men’s characters.One ad described a Playboy reader as “A young man who knows where he’s goingand how to make the best time getting there.” Another ad described the Playboyreader as “apt to make his move.” An ad set in a bookstore emphasized that Playboyreaders were educated and had broad interests beyond romance and dating, a themerevisited by an ad that stressed Playboy readers were logical, adept thinkers. An adthat showed a man being measured for a suit emphasized that Playboy readers hadthe skills, drive, and ability to become social and business successes.

Most readers were no doubt pleased to see themselves associated with thesophisticated images presented in the “What Sort of Man Reads Playboy” ads. Oneexception was Wayne Peterson, from Enderlin, North Dakota, who wrote, “... yourreaders are not always glamor-boy, cocktails-at-seven, gotta-beat-the-women-off-with-a-stick types. I could be wrong, but it is possible that more young men wouldbuy PLAYBOY if you were to aim your campaign at Mr. Average a little more,instead of directing it at the young executive group.” The editorial response was,“There are plenty of magazines for Mr. Average, Wayne. PLAYBOY is edited for aspecial sort of guy—a bit above average in taste, education and income.”

Two early covers implied that adopting the tenets of Playboy could make a manmore independent and stand out from the crowd. The November 1956 cover showedseveral cartoon men and women in an elevator. Among them were the Rabbit and hisgirlfriend. Only the Rabbit and his girlfriend had faces, and, by extension, identities.The other people on the elevator were faceless. This image appeared again on theMay 1957 cover, where the Rabbit and his girlfriend were shown boarding a cruiseship, surrounded by faceless others.

351


INCORPORATING FEMININE ATTRIBUTES INTO THE MASCULINE IDEAL

As noted by Cox (1965), the editorial stance of Playboy implied that by adopting thephilosophy advocated by the magazine, one would become a playboy. As we willargue in more detail below, Playboy successfully maintained that a portion of therecommended philosophy involved developing interests, abilities, and attributes tra-ditionally associated with women without ever explicitly describing them aswomen’s attributes. Playboy’s accomplishment is surprising given the evidence(e.g., McCreary, 1994; O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986) thatmen reject gender-specific behaviors typically considered within the femininedomain, such as emotionality and sensitivity.

Playboy’s success in advocating an identity for men that incorporated tradition-ally feminine elements was due to framing these elements in terms of increasingone’s ability to succeed with women. Thus, a key to understanding the influence ofPlayboy is to recognize that the magazine suggested that the extremely heterosexualgoal of sexual relations with women could be best accomplished by developing adecidedly feminine set of skills and attributes. In any context other than a glossymagazine filled with pictures of naked women, advocating the adoption of feminineideals would be immediately suspect. The patina of female nudity, however, madethe message immediately palatable because it incorporated the adoption of femininevalues in the enactment of masculine values.

PLAYBOY’S INITIAL DIRECTION AND CONTENTS

Playboy magazine was founded on a shoestring budget. The contents of the first fewissues represented Hugh Hefner’s vision of what he wanted limited by the realitythat he had little money with which to purchase top-rate editorial material. Thus, thefirst few issues are a cruder version of what the magazine would quickly become. Atthe same time, however, the key elements appeared even in the first issue. Hefner’seditorial in the first issue was the initial contribution to defining a playboy. His edi-torial read:

IF YOU’RE A MAN between the ages of 18 and 80, PLAYBOY ismeant for you. If you like your entertainment served up withhumor, sophistication and spice, PLAYBOY will become a veryspecial favorite.

We want to make clear from the very start, we aren’t a “fam-ily magazine.” If you’re somebody’s sister, wife or mother-in-lawand picked us up by mistake, please pass us along to the man inyour life and get back to your Ladies Home Companion.

Within the pages of Playboy you will find articles, fiction,picture stories, cartoons, humor and special features culled frommany sources, past and present, to form a pleasure-primer styled tothe masculine taste.

Most of today’s “magazines for men” spend all their time out-of-doors—thrashing through thorny thickets or splashing about in

352


fast flowing streams. We’ll be out there too, occasionally, but wedon’t mind telling you in advance—we plan on spending most ofour time inside.

We like our apartment. We enjoy mixing up cocktails and anhors d’oeuvre or two, putting a little mood music on the phono-graph, and inviting in a female acquaintance for quiet discussionon Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex.

We believe, too, that we are filling a publishing need onlyslightly less important than the one just taken care of by the Kin-sey Report. The magazines now being produced for the city-bredmale (there are 2—count ’em—2) have, of late, placed so muchemphasis on fashion, travel, and “how-to-do-it” features on every-thing from avoiding a hernia to building your own steam bath, thatentertainment has been all but pushed from their pages. PLAYBOYwill emphasize entertainment.

Affairs of state will be out of our province. We don’t expect tosolve any world problems or prove any great moral truths. If weare able to give the American male a few extra laughs and a littlediversion from the anxieties of the Atomic Age, we’ll feel we’vejustified our existence.

The tone set by this editorial positioned Playboy as distinct from other men’smagazines and presented a view of men as indoor creatures who welcomed the com-pany of women and sought to engage them in discourse on topics ranging from pop-ular music to depressing and dark philosophy. The ideal setting for such interactionwas presented as a man’s apartment with the promise of somewhat exotic food wait-ing in the background. The presumption was that the man, rather than the woman,had prepared this food. Thus, from the initial issue, a tone was set to distance menfrom the aggressive, hunter-gatherer image and push them toward a more nurturantand homey, nest-building model.

In crafting his initial image of a playboy in his first issue editorial, Hugh Hefnerfocused on several activities that would become staples of the magazine as itevolved. Many of these activities a priori might be expected to appear in a women’smagazine rather than a men’s magazine. It is interesting to note that the first issueincluded a recipe for sob-sob rice and chicken and a layout on “desk design for themodern office” written by a woman. Topics such as decorating and cooking might beexpected to appeal more to women than to men. They were interests consistent withthe woman’s traditional role as a wife and mother and could be viewed as reflectingvalues such as sensitivity to style and nurturance.

An interest in conversation and an appreciation of the arts reflected the compas-sion and sensitivity often associated with women. Moreover, the emphasis on theimportance of conversation focused on a skill that women are assumed to possess toa greater degree than men (e.g., Tannen, 1990). In addition, the editorial implied thata playboy would seek women who were intelligent and educated. It is interesting tonote that the physical appearance of the playboy’s female companions was left unde-fined. Beauty, apparently, took a backseat to brains. These facets of Hugh Hefner’s

353


editorial and the magazine’s editorial content stand in stark contradiction to the viewof the magazine held by social scientists and the lay public with regard to the philos-ophy of the publication.

An emphasis on cerebral, rather than physical, activity was reinforced in thefirst issue by the inclusion of an excerpt of a Sherlock Holmes story called “Intro-ducing Sherlock Holmes.” Just as Hugh Hefner was introducing his conception ofmen to the world through his publication, the piece served to introduce SherlockHolmes. The theme of the story was the self-creation of an identity. It is clear thatSherlock Holmes prides himself on his self-made identity as the world’s only “unof-ficial consulting detective,” just as Playboy readers would come to pride themselveson their playboy identities. Moreover, the reprint emphasized Sherlock Holmes’prowess in mental rather than physical abilities. He is quoted as saying, “I cannotlive without brainwork. What else is there to live for?”

As early as the second issue, subscription ads also drew attention to thoseaspects of the playboy that were inconsistent with stereotypes about men. In keepingwith Hefner’s initial editorial, one subscription ad defined Playboy as a magazinestyled for the tastes of the “city-bred male” who was concerned with “proper dress,food and drink, art, literature....” The ad positioned Playboy against other men’smagazines with “nothing on their minds but the great out-of-doors” and distancedPlayboy readers from existing conceptualizations of men.

The modern Playboy magazine evolved rather quickly. The third issue had ahumorous article on Brooks Brothers fashions. By the fifth issue, there was an articleby Thomas Mario on the “pleasures of the oyster.” Service articles on fashion andcooking became regular features. On a surface level, these features were gearedtoward the goal of educating men about the skills they needed to become playboys.Some of the skills were decidedly masculine. Others, however, such as fashion andcooking, reflected feminine interests.

CREATION OF THE “ADVISOR” COLUMN

In 1958, Playboy published an amusing parody of the advice columns of Ann Lan-ders and Abigial Van Buren. The parody consisted of real letters taken from theircolumns that were answered by a cold-hearted and insensitive bachelor. Theresponse to the parody was so favorable, Playboy initiated a real advice column inthe September 1960 issue. Its purpose was to answer “questions on a wide variety oftopics of interest to the urban man—from fashion, food and drink, hi-fi and sportscars, to dating dilemmas, taste and etiquette.”

From its inception, the “Playboy Advisor” column promoted the values of sensi-tivity, compassion, and understanding in dealing with the complexity of the emo-tional components of sex and relationships (Beggan et al., 2000). A willingness andability to adopt this perspective in dealing with emotional issues are unusual formen, given the influence of their gender-related role socialization (Levant &Kopecky, 1995/96). Although the editorial voice of the Advisor was definitely mas-culine, he personified a cluster of attributes more often associated with women ratherthan men. The Advisor’s responses were characterized by sensitivity to women’sperspectives. The Advisor argued against double-standards, encouraged men to be


354

thoughtful with regard to emotions, and published a significant number of lettersfrom women that further permitted women to voice their own concerns in the pagesof the magazine. In addition, the column’s anonymous nature promoted among malereaders a willingness to discuss personal problems and to admit weakness and igno-rance about topics that were considered areas of traditional male expertise. In otherwords, the Advisor prompted men to display the vulnerability that is more tradition-ally associated with women.

THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE RABBIT

In the first issue of Playboy, the Rabbit appeared on the party jokes page and as asymbol to indicate the end of each article. In the second issue, he made his firstcover appearance, as a cartoon-like figure standing next to two beauty contestants. Inthe eighth issue, his appearance on the party jokes page was changed so that helooked more urbane. Although the Rabbit was initially created as a male symbol, hehas developed a complex identity that is highly interconnected with women.

The magazine’s covers document the many different ways in which the Rabbithas been represented over the years. It is possible to speculate whether there is a sin-gle Rabbit, with many facets to his character, or perhaps there are many Rabbits,each with different properties. One characterization of the Rabbit is as the reificationof Playboy values in a non-human but corporeal form. In this identity, he served as aromantic escort for women and modeled the ideal characteristics of the playboy. SeeFigure 1 for an example of such a representation. The portrayal of the Rabbit as adesirable date for women is repeated in a number of covers. The September 1955cover showed a faux newspaper with a story on the Rabbit written up as a socialite.The article described him as a bon vivant, sportsman, gourmet, raconteur, and play-boy. The cover also showed two theatre tickets and gloves resting on the newspaper.The overall impression was that the Rabbit was attending the theatre that eveningand had just seen, or was about to see, the newspaper article on himself. On theNovember 1955 cover, a lovely co-ed had carved a Rabbit head into a tree trunk. Shewas clearly in love with the Rabbit.

The September 1956 cover is especially useful in understanding the incarnationof the Rabbit as a real entity. It suggested that there really was a Rabbit, named Play-boy, who frequently dated human women and possessed the attributes of the perfectplayboy. The cover showed a photo album with pictures of the Rabbit engaged invacation activities, such as golfing and biking. One photograph showed the Rabbitstanding next to a beautiful woman. In the lower right-hand corner of the cover wasa letter in a woman’s handwriting that provided a context for the pictures. The salu-tation implied that the Rabbit in the photograph was named “Playboy.” The text ofthe letter made it clear that the woman had spent her vacation with Playboy andthinks fondly about the pictures that document that vacation. In this context, it isinteresting to note that the Rabbit has never been represented as a real rabbit. Wefeel the failure to present the Rabbit in this manner is because the Rabbit representsan anthropomorphized construction of the masculine ideal.

In another conceptualization, the Rabbit acts like a “familiar,” a spirit often inanimal form charged to attend, serve, or guard a person. In this case, the guarded

355


person is the Playboy reader. There is a dramatic tradition for a rabbit to act as asupernatural conduit to a better, more special world. Consider, for example, the giantwhite rabbit who is Jimmy Stewart’s companion in the movie Harvey. A white rab-bit also served as the impetus for Alice to travel down the rabbit hole to Wonderland.The association between a rabbit and Easter, a holiday that celebrates rebirth, is con-sistent with the notion that the Rabbit served as a means to a better place.

In the role of familiar, the Rabbit’s identity manifests itself in a symbolic fash-ion. He was an artful bend in a telephone cord on the March 1961 cover. On the July1958 cover, the Rabbit appeared stylized in a woman’s bathing suit. In June 1962,the Rabbit appeared as a knot in a bikini bottom. In February 1963, the Rabbitappeared as a glint in a champagne glass. In these covers, the Rabbit’s spirit existseven without a bodily manifestation. He is a guardian angel whose presence guaran-tees that festivities will transpire in a fashion consistent with the Playboy lifestyle.

Another identity illustrated by covers is the Rabbit as the outgrowth of women.The idea that women should contribute to the manifestation of the Rabbit is consis-

356


Reproduced by Special Permission of Playboy magazine.Copyright © 1954, 1982 by Playboy.

Figure 1. An example of the representation of the Rabbit as a real entity.

tent with the biological reality that women give birth, and, as a result, men do owetheir existence to women. Moreover, the theme of a woman as earth mother and cre-ator runs through the mythologies of many modern and ancient cultures (Campbell,1968). Covers that highlight the contributions of women in the display of the Rabbittake at least two forms: transformational and creational. In transformational covers, awoman creates the Rabbit by presenting his key features. The most striking exampleof this category is the May 1964 cover that showed Playmate of the Year DonnaMichelle in a white leotard, her body twisted into the shape of the Rabbit. Her legsformed the Rabbit’s ears and her torso formed his head (see Figure 2). On the August1962 cover, a woman in a bathing cap is shown in a pool of water. Her reflection inthe water forms the shape of the Rabbit. In the July 1955 issue, the Rabbit appearedas a non-suntanned portion of a woman’s back. These transformational covers implythat women have strongly contributed to the make-up of the Rabbit characterization.

357



Figure 2. An example of a transformational cover.

The importance of women in defining the Rabbit is also revealed in covers thatshow women creating the Rabbit with a conscious effort to invoke his presence. Asearly as February 1955, the Rabbit was shown as being crafted by women, in thisinstance from snow. In April 1955 the creation theme was revisited in a cover show-ing a woman making Rabbit paper dolls. This cover is reproduced as Figure 3. TheRabbit has been incarnated as a clay sculpture shaped by a woman artist on theMarch 1959 cover. Janet Pilgrim drew him in a steamed window on the December1955 cover. A similar cover appeared in October 1963. The Rabbit has been shownas a shadow created from the arrangement of a woman’s fingers on the May 1959cover and the September 1963 cover. On the October 1959 cover, a woman wasshown playing connect-the-dots. The dots, of course, create the Rabbit. Thus, theRabbit was often shown owing his existence to the effort of women to craft him.

On the creation-oriented and transformational covers, the Rabbit—the symbolof Playboy—merged the masculine identity with the feminine identity and reinforcedthe magazine’s underlying message that the masculine ideal should contain a femi-nine component. Given that the Rabbit has been created by or from the essence of


358


Figure 3. An example of a creation-oriented cover.

women, it would follow that his character would be consistent with women’s desiresin a companion. These attributes would be expected to include both stereotypic malecharacteristics, as well as non-stereotypic attributes such as gentleness and support-iveness (e.g., Buss, 1989; Sprecher et al., 1994). In other words, removed from themetaphor of the Rabbit, women were consistently shown contributing to the devel-opment of the masculine identity. The portrayal of the Rabbit on the covers wastherefore consistent with service features of the magazine that emphasized theimportance of learning to behave in a manner congruent with the desires and valuesof women. Moreover, covers that demonstrated the Rabbit’s success with womensent a clear message concerning the utility of the Rabbit’s strategy. By adopting themagazine’s recommendations, the reader chiseled an identity as a playboy, in theprocess, became Rabbit-like, and was granted the opportunity to emulate the Rab-bit’s achievements with women.

WHY THE RABBIT WAS THE PERFECT CHOICE

There are several reasons why the Rabbit was the perfect choice as the symbol forPlayboy magazine. First, on a pragmatic level, a cute, furry, and defenseless animalserved as a suitable foil to many critics who charged that the magazine was too sexu-ally explicit. Although tame by today’s standards, the early issues of Playboy occa-sionally pushed into the forefront of First Amendment issues. The Post Office, forexample, tried to prevent Hugh Hefner from having a preferred mailing status on thegrounds that the magazine was pornographic. The Rabbit symbol most likely soft-ened the impression conveyed by the magazine.

Because the Rabbit is non-human, his presence and success with women, as typ-ified by contexts created on the covers, did not represent a threat to the male readersof the magazine. The reader was not competing directly with the Rabbit for theaffection of women. Rather, the Rabbit served as a mirror in which each reader wasable to see his own reflection. In addition, the use of the Rabbit may have divertedsome attention from Hugh Hefner as an object of invidious comparison. The typicalreader, without the money, the magazine, or the mansion would be unable to attainHefner’s playboy status.

The idea that the Rabbit permitted male readers to imagine themselvesimmersed in the Playboy lifestyle is reinforced by noting the minimal role played bymen on cover illustrations. When men did appear, they did so as cartoon figures andbody parts. The first instance of a man’s appearance on a cover was the July 1956issue. The picture showed a cartoon drawing of a man’s wrist and hand carrying asuitcase. The implication was that he was going on an extensive world tour andintended to visit a number of beautiful women along the way. The Rabbit was mani-fested as an image on his cuff link. On the April 1958 cover, a man’s hand, againwith a Rabbit head cuff link, placed a bet on a roulette table. In September 1958, theRabbit appeared as a tie tack against the background of a man’s shirt. On the Decem-ber 1959 cover, a man’s arm, wearing a Rabbit cuff link, was shown, along with twowomen’s arms, toasting the New Year. On the May 1960 issue, a woman was shownputting a flower in a man’s jacket lapel. On the May 1961 cover, a man’s hands


359

appeared, with the Rabbit shown as a ring on the man’s hands. On the October 1961cover, a man’s legs were shown. In July 1962, a man’s leg in pajamas was shown.

We have conceptualized the Rabbit as a means by which men were encouragedto adopt traditionally feminine values. The Rabbit also served as a way in which menwere able to imagine themselves within the drape of the Playboy lifestyle. By associ-ating the Rabbit with the outward signs of masculine success, the magazine was ableto deftly sidestep the incongruity associated with representing masculinity by soobviously feminine a symbol. In doing so, the magazine was able to embed a mes-sage concerning the importance of adopting feminine values.

THE CREATION OF THE FEMALE RABBIT:THE BIRTH OF THE BUNNY

The idea that Playboy merged masculine with feminine identities in the constructionof a male ideal is perhaps best represented by invention of the Playboy Bunny towork in the Playboy Clubs. In a manifestation as cocktail waitresses, the Rabbiticon—a masculine symbol with feminine attributes—metamorphosed into a femaleicon with masculine attributes.

A number of the most important features of the Playboy mythology evolved bythe operation of fortuitous circumstances. The initiation of the Advisor columnresulted from the positive response that a parody of advice columns received. Like-wise, development of the Playboy Clubs occurred as the direct result of a story themagazine ran on “Gaslight” clubs in the November 1956 issue. In these clubs, wait-resses wearing bust-enhancing costumes said to be inspired by gay nineties fashionsserved members food and drinks. According to Miller (1984), when over three thou-sand readers wrote in asking about how they could join a gaslight club, Playboyemployee Victor Lownes hypothesized that many more readers would be willing tojoin a Playboy Club.

The Playboy Club was first mentioned in the January 1960 issue. The Club wasdescribed in glowing terms as “an attempt to project the plush and romantic mood ofthe magazine into a private club of good fellows interested in the better, more plea-surable aspects of life.... It will have the warmth, the intimacy, and the fun of a pri-vate cocktail party....” The article also implied that membership would be selective.“The limited membership will be drawn from the most aware and affluent group ineach community,” the article stated. Of course, in reality, members were accepted aslong as they paid their fee.

An immediate problem was deciding what the cocktail waitresses would wear(Miller, 1984). Initially, the idea of dressing the waitresses to represent the Rabbitsymbol was rejected on the grounds that the Rabbit was male and the cocktail wait-resses would be female. But after seeing how attractive a woman could look in a pro-totype costume, the decision to use the Rabbit image was made. In an attempt to dis-tinguish the masculine and feminine constructions of the Rabbit, the cocktailwaitresses were dubbed “bunnies” whereas the symbol that appeared on covers wastypically referred to as a “rabbit.” In the March 1986 issue, “The World of Playboy”described Playboy’s Empire Club and noted that it would be staffed by both Bunniesand Rabbits (“boy Bunnies”), but the Empire Club appears to have been a short-lived

360


phenomenon, and the Rabbits had a short life-span.A story on the first Playboy Club, which opened in Chicago, appeared in the

August 1960 issue. Bunnies were introduced as “invitingly attired in brightly coloredrabbit costumes, complete to the ears and white cottontails.” The initial costume wasessentially a one-piece bathing suit made of a satin-like material with a built-incorset but did not include the bow tie or French cuffs that became a part of the clas-sic Playboy Bunny outfit. The bow tie and cuffs further integrated and blended themale and female aspects of the Rabbit identity. By April 1963, when a Bunnyappeared on the cover of Playboy with tie and cuffs, the merger of male and femalewas completed.

It is important to note a conceptual relationship between the Playboy Club andthe magazine’s brief but initial incarnation as Stag Party. In terms of identity con-struction, the shift in name from Stag Party to Playboy carried with it a shift in focusfrom a collectivity of men interacting in a homosocial environment to an individual,that is, a single playboy. Less than ten years after Playboy was conceived, the Play-boy Club represented a shift from the individual back to the collective. Having care-fully defined a masculine ideal, it was only logical that this army of playboys shouldbe free to interact with each other in an environment sanctioned by Playboy. ThePlayboy Club was a place where men sympathetic to Playboy ideals would be ableto interact. In other words, having created a new kind of man—the playboy—Hefnerattempted to create a site where they could engage in fraternal bonding. The bondingwould not haphazardly reflect the naturally occurring processes that take place inhomosocial settings. Rather, it would be regulated carefully and reflect the motivesof the magazine. In the August 1960 article, there was a stern warning about one’smembership entitlements. The fifty-dollar initial fee would provide lifetime member-ship as long as the member “broke none of the club rules.” Courtesy of Playboy,there was a party going on, only now it was a Playboy party, and one that was laidout according to the parameters developed in the magazine.

Readers’ responses to the article on the Chicago Playboy Club were printed inthe November 1960 issue of the magazine. Not surprisingly, the tone of the pub-lished letters was highly favorable and enthusiastic. One letter, from Lt. Leon M.Costanten, of the 4th Psychological Warfare Co., Fort Bragg North Carolina, wasparticularly insightful. He wrote, “It is, I feel, the inner desire of all males to be of a‘playboy nature.’” He added that the creation of the Playboy Club permitted modernmen to express this playboy nature.

WOMEN IN CONTROL OF THE RABBIT:WHO’S IN CHARGE HERE?

Although most critics of Playboy (e.g., D’Emilio & Freedman, 1997; Dworkin,1988; Ehrenreich, 1983; May, 1969; MacKinnon, 1986) have suggested or impliedthat Playboy presents an image of women as subservient to men, we have arguedthat some imagery in the magazine actually reversed this power relationship.According to our interpretation, the magazine was a guidebook for the reader abouthow to develop an arsenal of skills and attributes that would make him attractive towomen. Thus, the needs, desires, and demands of women serve as the underlying


361

and primary motivator of men reading the magazine. This perspective on the con-struction of the masculine ideal indicates that women in the Playboy world wereafforded significantly more power than is generally recognized by social critics.

Playboy is seen by social critics (e.g., Brownmiller, 1991; Ewing, 1995) as anti-thetical to the interests of women as a whole. In this paper, we have argued in favorof an alternative perspective. We suggest that Playboy has advanced the goals ofwomen by encouraging men to adopt a masculine ideal that incorporates some of thevalues and desires of women. Despite the overt emphasis on the nude pictorials, thesubtext contained within Playboy magazine was in favor of blending the charactersof men and women.

The magazines’ covers often showed images of women as creators of the Rab-bit. Just as women can be seen as creators of the Rabbit, they can also be seen as cre-ators of Playboy and the playboys it spawned. To the extent that the Rabbit symbol-ized the masculine ideal of the playboy, the message was that men owed theiridentity to the values of women, just as the Rabbit owed his existence to the inter-vention of women. In the world of Playboy, the goodwill of women is the primaryreinforcer for men. Rather than serve as trophies, as critics (e.g., May, 1969) havesuggested, however, women serve as arbiters of taste.

The thesis of the present paper is that Playboy encouraged men to adopt thecharacteristics, traits, and abilities of women. Although outside the scope of the pre-sent article, it is interesting to examine the degree to which the magazine alsoencouraged women to expand the boundaries of their self-conceptions. Scholars(e.g., Bordo, 1993; Wolf, 1991) have considered the way in which unrealistic mediaimages have a deleterious effect on women’s body images. We have shown (Begganet al., 2000) that women’s letters published in the “Advisor” column contained infor-mation that was inconsistent with stereotypes about women. Were stereotypes aboutwomen contradicted in other features of the magazine? If so, could this stereotype-inconsistent information help women develop more complex and favorable represen-tations of themselves and other women? Such questions could serve as the basis forfuture scholarly efforts with regard to Playboy magazine.

CONCLUSIONS

Mass media are one way in which stereotypes about men and women are maintainedin our culture (e.g., Bordo, 1993; Hirschman & Thompson, 1997; Richins, 1991;Wolf, 1991). These stereotypes are often deeply ingrained in the assumptive frame-work that provides a backdrop for communications within a medium. Stereotype-consistent images can be expected to have a reliable influence on perceivers (Cash &Henry, 1995; Signorielli, 1989; Rudman & Borgia, 1995; Wiseman et al., 1992).

Our analysis is premised on an alternative perspective. We have suggested that amedium that appears to transmit a message consistent with a stereotype may, in fact,generate meanings that advocate renunciation of that stereotype. Playboy magazineis often presented as the prototype of a mass medium that has contributed to themaintenance of stereotypes about men and women (e.g., Ehrenreich, 1983). A num-ber of scholars (e.g., Brod, 1988; Dworkin, 1988; May, 1969) have further arguedthat Playboy maintains misogynistic views of women. In our analysis, we have pre-


362

sented and provided support for an antithetical position. Playboy magazine opposedstereotyping by encouraging men to adopt a masculine identity that incorporated anumber of attributes more strongly associated with women than with men. This per-spective is provocative given the assertion by scholars (e.g., Blazina, 1997) that menfear and attempt to disown the feminine component of their own identities.

We have found that the magazine did not relegate women to a subordinate sta-tus. Rather, it actually gave them a significant amount of authority by advocatingtheir values, by suggesting that men incorporate key feminine attributes into theirown identities, and by implying that men should conform to women’s preferences.We do not deny that some material contained in Playboy could be construed as sexist(e.g., Brooks, 1995). Rather, we are asserting a complementary perspective. That is,at least some material contained in the magazine was actively non-sexist andopposed, rather than affirmed, stereotypes about both men and women (e.g., Begganet al., 2000). Moreover, we suggest that Playboy’s ability to effect change in thebeliefs of its male readers may stem in part from its appearance as a stronghold ofmasculine values.

We can reconcile our perspective with the contradictory positions of otherscholars by recognizing certain facts about scholarship with regard to Playboy maga-zine. First, other work on Playboy has not always found results consistent withexpected sex stereotyping. For example, an analysis of centerfolds failed to revealevidence of objectification of women (Bogaert, Turkovich, & Hafer, 1993). Second,much of the scholarly work on Playboy has focused on graphics, such as the center-folds (e.g., Harris, Fine, & Hood, 1992; Rich & Cash, 1993) and cartoons (e.g.,Bradly, Boles, & Jones, 1979). It is not clear how conclusions drawn from analysesof graphics might relate to conclusions drawn from text features. Finally, scholarshipfocused on the editorial content of the magazine (e.g., Ehrenreich, 1983; Knuf, 1994;Matacin & Burger, 1987) has tended to examine only a small subset of availabledata. We know of no other researchers who have used as much of the editorial con-tent of the magazine as the basis for their analysis as we have in the present work.

There is evidence that a minority perspective may be able to sway a majorityopinion (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969). Minorities are most successful as influenceagents if their messages are varied in content but consistent in ideology. It mayprove insightful to interpret Playboy magazine in terms of an analysis based on howminorities can be influential (Moscovici, 1985). The magazine presented an ideolog-ically consistent message to men to adopt the values of women from multiple per-spectives. Features such as the “Advisor” column permitted both men and women toprovide their views on a wide range of issues relevant to stereotype disconfirmation(Beggan et al., 2000). The complex message sent by the Rabbit symbol and the Rab-bit’s role in defining the relationship between men and women contradicted stereo-types about men. Hugh Hefner’s installments of the “Playboy Philosophy” thatappeared in the early 1960s and the Playboy “Forum” promoted central processing(Petty & Cacioppo, 1981) about social and political issues. In sum, then, a number ofdistinct voices in the magazine promoted a coherent and unified message with atheme that affirmed the importance of the values of women. It is reasonable toassume that at least some readers found this perspective challenging to their beliefsystems and processed the information systematically. Their attempts to assimilate it,


363

and the fact that it originated from Playboy magazine, might have led to permanentattitude change on the parts of these readers, with a general softening of reliance onstereotypic representations as the basis for self-definitions.

It would be interesting to explore the extent to which the magazine’s contentmight have had a lasting influence on its readers. On the basis of our analysis, wewould expect that men who read Playboy consistently would differ in their self-con-cepts relative to men who did not. Specifically, Playboy readers would be expectedto score differently than non-readers on assessments of their degree of masculinityand femininity. Playboy readers might be more likely to score as “androgynous”(Bem, 1974), that is, score high on both masculine and feminine personality charac-teristics, rather than sex-typed as masculine. In addition to differences in personalitycharacteristics, differences might be obtained with regard to Playboy readers beingmore “pro-feminine” than non-readers, both in terms of expressed attitudes aboutand behaviors toward women. A third prediction is based on evidence that womendesire attributes in a mate that relate to nurturance and kindness (e.g., Buss, 1989;Sprecher et al., 1994), that is, what would typically be considered feminine traits. Itis possible, then, that the wives of Playboy readers might view their spouses as betterhusbands, relative to the wives of Playboy non-readers.

Typically, in research on minority influence (e.g., Clark, & Maass, 1990), themajority and minority opinions are represented by distinct groups. What is uniqueabout interpreting Playboy from the literature on minority influence is that in thisinstance, Playboy served dual roles as the majority opinion and a minority perspec-tive embedded within that majority opinion. A minority’s influence may be derivedfrom its ability to promote systematic information processing (Mackie, 1987) andsubsequent creative thinking (Mucchi-Faina, Maass, & Volpato, 1991) among major-ity members. Given Playboy’s status as representative of the majority, i.e., masculine,opinion, the magazine might be expected to be an especially effective change agentfor stereotyping because anti-sexist statements would appear to run counter to themagazine’s dominant viewpoint and be likely to promote cognitive processing. Inother words, from an attributional perspective (e.g., Kelley, 1967), the magazinewould be a credible source (Clark & Maass, 1988) and its messages would be espe-cially influential in altering the attitudes of majority group members, i.e., men.

The spirit of our argument is consistent with much of the work on the reductionof prejudice (Allport, 1954; Amir, 1969; Stephan, 1987), which is based on thepremise that stereotyping becomes less likely as in-group members learn more aboutout-group members. In our analysis, we suggest that, although women may be lowerin power and status in our culture compared to men, through the male-dominatedcommunication medium of Playboy magazine, the interests and values of womenwere given expression. In this instance, selected representatives, i.e., the editorialstaff, articulated a position sympathetic to the interests of women, even in an envi-ronment that would appear primed to develop a high degree of group cohesionwithin the context of male fraternal bonding (Curry, 1991; Hood, 1995; Katz, 1995).

The questions raised by the present work serve as intriguing hypotheses thatcould be tested using experimental or quasi-experimental methods. Evidence sup-portive of these hypotheses would be very interesting, given the arguments (e.g.,Brooks, 1995; Dworkin, 1988; Hill, 1987) that the consumption of Playboy maga-


364

zine should contribute to the development of negative attitudes toward women.There is some reason to expect our hypothesized pattern of results, given that recentinvestigations (e.g., Barak, Fisher, Belfry, & Lastambe, 1999; Davies, 1997; Jansma,Linz, Mulac, & Imrich, 1997) have failed to find evidence of a negative relationshipbetween consumption of pornography and attitudes toward women. Evidence thatreading Playboy magazine contributes to the development of more favorable atti-tudes toward women would reinforce the need to develop a better understanding ofthe potentially very complex effects of sexually explicit material on thoughts, feel-ings, and behavior.

Although potentially very interesting, it is important to note that any researchthat attempted to test for relationships between reading Playboy and psychologicalattributes of Playboy readers would be correlational in nature and subject to interpre-tive difficulties. For example, even if Playboy readers are shown to possess lessstereotyped views of women, it would be impossible to determine whether readingPlayboy was a cause of these views. It is possible, for instance, that a third variablemight be responsible for both the tendency to read Playboy and to possess lessstereotyped views of women. At the same time, however, beginning such a line ofinquiry could prove fruitful in better understanding how men come to see them-selves, and women, as a function of the media to which they are exposed.

We have restricted our analysis of Playboy magazine to its first ten years of pub-lication. Our reason for imposing this limitation is that in its early incarnations, themagazine was an unknown quantity. As a result, the editorial staff was free to definethe magazine as it chose. This identification process was novel and less subject to aself-consciousness that would have developed as the magazine came under greaterand greater scrutiny from sources such as the press, scholars, and the lay public.

It is interesting to speculate about the influence of Playboy magazine on men inour current society. On the one hand, Playboy magazine, although viewed as thegrandfather of men’s magazines, may be seen as less influential. By current stan-dards set by other men’s publications, such as Penthouse or Hustler, Playboy israther tame. At the same time, however, it is important to note that by remainingaloof from other men’s magazines, Playboy may be able to maintain its position as asource of identity definition for men.

The central mission of Playboy is not to present sexual images. Rather, its mis-sion is to present images of a masculine ideal. This goal remains in force even in theyear 2000. In a recent analysis of Playboy’s attempt to become a presence on theInternet, company spokeswoman Martha Lindeman was quoted describing the Play-boy site as, “... a lifestyle and entertainment site” (Koerner, 2000, p. 42). The mainfocus of the Internet site was described as concerned with “travel and nightlife andgaming and what’s going on on campus, rather than pure sex-slash-erotica”(Koerner, 2000, p. 42). Given the greater ambiguity about appropriate roles that canbe adopted by both men and women in our modern culture, it seems as if the needfor some assistance in ways to best define the masculine ideal still exists.

It is possible to argue that although Playboy was in some ways sympathetic tothe position of women, its attempts to become the defenders of women representedan unnecessarily paternalistic approach that would have reinforced stereotypes ofwomen as the helpless, weaker sex. We disagree with this position because the mag-


365

azine did not only attempt to give value to a feminine perspective, it also gavewomen the opportunity to speak in their own voices. It is important to recognize thatoutlets for women developed relatively early in the history of the magazine in whatappears to be a natural, evolutionary process. The “Playboy Advisor” column regu-larly published letters from women. A great many of these letters asserted positionsthat contradicted stereotypes about women (Beggan et al., 2000). Moreover, themagazine has published many articles and stories by women. Thus, in sum, it can beargued that Playboy achieved an ironic and unexpected goal that has been ignored byprior social critics of the magazine. The magazine should actually be conceptualizedas a source for women’s perspectives.

REFERENCES

Allan, K., & Coltrane, S. (1996). Gender display in television commercials: A com-parative study of television commercials in the 1950s and 1980s. Sex Roles, 35,185-203.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71,

319-342.Barak, A., Fisher, W. A., Belfry, S., & Lashambe, D. R. (1999). Sex, guys, and

cyberspace: Effects of Internet pornography and individual differences on men’sattitudes toward women. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 11, 63-91.

Beggan, J. K., Gagné, P., & Allison, S. T. (2000). An analysis of stereotype refuta-tion in Playboy by an editorial voice: The advisor hypothesis. The Journal ofMen’s Studies, 9, 1-21.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Con-sulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bergen, D. J., & Williams, J. E. (1991). Sex stereotypes in the United States revis-ited: 1972-1988. Sex Roles, 24, 413-423.

Blazina, C. (1997). The fear of the feminine in the Western psyche and the mascu-line task of disidentification: Their effect on the development of masculine gen-der role conflict. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 6, 55-68.

Bogaert, A. F., Turkovich, D. A., & Hafer, C. L. (1993). A content analysis of Play-boy centerfolds from 1953 through 1990: Changes in explicitness, objectifica-tion, and model’s age. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 135-139.

Bordo, S. (1993). Unbearable weight: Feminism, western culture, and the body.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bradley, D. S., Boles, J., & Jones, C. (1979). From mistress to hooker: 40 years ofcartoon humor in men’s magazines. Qualitative Sociology, 2, 42-62.

Brady, F. (1974). Hefner. New York: Macmillan.Brod, H. (1988). Pornography and the alienation of male sexuality. Social Theory

and Practice, 14, 265-284. Brooks, G. R. (1990). Post-Vietnam gender role strain: A needed concept? Profes-

sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 18-25.Brooks, G. R. (1995). The centerfold syndrome. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

366


Brownmiller, S. (1991). Women fight back. In R. M. Baird & S. E. Rosenbaum(Eds.), Pornography: Private right or public menace? (pp. 36-39). Buffalo, NY:Prometheus Books.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionaryhypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.

Campbell, J. (1968). Creative mythology. New York: The Viking Press.Cash, T. F., & Henry, P. E. (1995). Women’s body images: The results of a national

survey in the U.S.A. Sex Roles, 33, 19-28.Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L.

R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: three (football) field studies. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.

Clark, M. S., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships.Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 609-672.

Clark, R. D., III, & Maass, A. (1990). The effects of majority size on minority influ-ence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 99-117.

Clark, R. D., III, & Maass, A. (1988). The role of social categorization and perceivedsource credibility in minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 18, 381-394.

Cox, H. (1965). The secular city. New York: Macmillan.Curry, T. J. (1991). Fraternal bonding in the locker room: A profeminist analysis of

talk about competition and women. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 119-135. Davies, K. A. (1997). Voluntary exposure to pornography and men’s attitudes

toward feminism and rape. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 131-137.Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships

among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 46, 991-1004.

Deaux, K., Winton, W., Crowley, M., & Lewis, L. L. (1985). Level of categorizationand content of gender stereotypes. Social Cognition, 3, 145-167.

De Lisi, R., & Soundranayagam, L. (1990). The conceptual structure of sex rolestereotypes in college students. Sex Roles, 23, 593-611.

D’Emilio, J., & Freedman, E. B. (1997). Intimate matters: A history of sexuality inAmerica (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Douglas, S. (1994). Where the girls are: Growing up female with the mass media.New York: Times Books.

Dworkin, A. (1988). Letters from a war zone: Writings, 1976-1987. New York: Dut-ton.

Eckes, T. (1994). Explorations in gender cognition: Content and structure of femaleand male subtypes. Social Cognition, 12, 37-60.

Edwards, G. H. (1992). The structure and content of the male gender role stereotype:An exploration of subtypes. Sex Roles, 27, 533-551.

Ehrenreich, B. (1983). The hearts of men: American dreams and the flight from com-mitment. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.

England, E. M. (1992). College student gender stereotypes: Expectations about thebehavior of male subcategory members. Sex Roles, 27, 699-716.

Ewing, W. (1995). The civil advocacy of violence. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Mess-ner (Eds.), Men’s lives (3rd. ed., pp. 301-306). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

367


Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness onromantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59, 981-993.

Gentry, C. S. (1991). Pornography and rape: An empirical analysis. Deviant Behav-ior, 12, 277-288.

Hall, S. (Ed.) (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying prac-tices. London: Sage.

Harris, D. K., Fine, G. A., & Hood, T. C. (1992). The aging of desire: Playboy cen-terfolds and the graying of America; A research note. Journal of Aging Studies,6, 301-306.

Harrison, J., Chin, J., & Ficarrotto, T. (1995). Warning: Masculinity may be danger-ous to your health. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (3rd.ed., pp. 237-249). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hill, J. M. (1987). Pornography and degradation. Hypatia, 2, 39-54.Hirschman, E. C., & Thompson, C. J. (1997). Why media matter: Toward a richer

understanding of consumers’ relationships with advertising and mass media.Journal of Advertising, 26, 43-60.

Hood, J. C. (1995). “Let’s get a girl”: Male bonding rituals in America. In M. S.Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (3rd ed., pp. 307-311). Boston,MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Jansma, L. L., Linz, D. G., Mulac, A., & Imrich, D. J. (1997). Men’s interactionswith women after viewing sexually explicit films: Does degradation make a dif-ference? Communication Monographs, 64, 1-24.

Kates, S. M., & Shaw-Garlock, G. (1999). The ever entangling web: A study of ide-ologies and discourses in advertising to women. Journal of Advertising, 28, 33-49.

Katz, J. (1995). Reconstructing masculinity in the locker room: The mentors in vio-lence prevention project. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 163-174.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192-241). Lincoln, NB: Uni-versity of Nebraska Press.

Knuf, J. (1994). Reading Playboy as ethnography: Lexical indices of some malenaive gender theories. Semiotica, 98, 301-339.

Koerner, B. I. (2000, March). Playboy tries for dot-com magic. U.S. News & WorldReport, 128, 12, 42.

Levant, R. F. (1997). The masculinity crisis. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 5, 221-231.

Levant, R. F., & Kopecky, G. (1995/96). Masculinity reconstructed: Changing therules of manhood. New York: Dutton/Plume.

Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority andminority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 53, 41-52.

MacKinnon, C. A. (1986). Pornography: Not a moral issue. Special issue: Womenand the law. Women’s Studies International Forum, 9, 63-78.

Malamuth, N. M., & Spinner, B. (1980). A longitudinal content analysis of sexual vio-lence in the best-selling erotic magazines. Journal of Sex Research, 16, 226-237.

368


Matacin, M. L., & Burger, J. M. (1987). A content analysis of sexual themes in Play-boy cartoons. Sex Roles, 17, 179-186.

May, R. (1969). Love and will. New York: Norton.McCreary, D. (1994). The male role and avoiding femininity. Sex Roles, 31, 517-

531.Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity.

Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Mick, D. G., & Buhl, C. (1992). A meaning-based model of advertising experiences.

Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 317-338.Miller, R. (1984). Bunny. New York: New American Library.Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 347-412). New York:Random House.

Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 124-135.

Mucchi-Faina, A., Maass, A., & Volpato, C. (1991). Social influence: The role oforiginality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 183-197.

O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1986).Gender role conflict scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335-350.

Peirce, K. (1993). Socialization of teenage girls through teen-magazine fiction: Themaking of a new woman or an old lady? Sex Roles, 29, 59-68.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J .T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and con-temporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.

Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant &

W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11-32). New York: BasicBooks.

Rich, M., & Cash, T. F. (1993). The American image of beauty: Media representa-tions of hair color for four decades. Sex Roles, 29, 113-124.

Richins, M. (1991). Social comparison and the idealized images in advertising. Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 12, 71-83.

Rudman, L. A., & Borgida, E. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: Thebehavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 493-517.

Satel, J. W. (1976). The inexpressive male: Tragedy or sexual politics? Social Prob-lems, 23, 469-477.

Scott, J. E., & Cuvelier, S. J. (1987). Violence in Playboy magazine: A longitudinalanalysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 279-288.

Signorielli, N. (1989). Television and conceptions about sex roles: Maintaining con-ventionality and the status quo. Sex Roles, 21, 341-360.

Sommers-Flanagan, R., Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Davis, B. (1993). What’s happen-ing on music television? A gender role content analysis. Sex Roles, 28, 745-753.

Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Genderdifferences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 66, 1074-1080.


369

Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. In C. Hen-dricks (Ed.), Group processes and intergroup relations (pp. 13-40). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Street, S., Kimmel, E. B., & Kromrey, J. D. (1995). Revisiting university studentgender role perceptions. Sex Roles, 33, 183-201.

Swim, J. K. (1994). Perceived versus meta-analytic effect sizes: An assessment ofthe accuracy of gender stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 66, 21-36.

Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. London, England:Cambridge University Press.

Talese, G. (1980). Thy neighbor’s wife. New York: Doubleday.Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation.

New York: William Morrow.Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.

Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.Werner, P. D., & LaRussa, G. W. (1985). Persistence and change in sex-role stereo-

types. Sex Roles, 12, 1089-1100.Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination

study. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Wiseman, C. V., Gray, J. J., Mosimann, J. E., & Ahrens, A. H. (1992). Cultural

expectations of thinness in women: An update. International Journal of EatingDisorders, 11, 85-89.

Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth. New York: Anchor.


370

Negotiating Masculinities in American Drinking Subcultures

LOIS A. WEST

Department of Sociology and AnthropologyFlorida International University

Drinking cultures are the means by which men negotiate mas-culinities in leisure activities. This exploratory article examinessimilarities and differences between two American male drink-ing subcultures—the fraternity and the U.S. Navy. It showsthat in their leisure alcohol use, men negotiate subordinate anddominant masculinities within real-life everyday experiencesof increasing cultural diversity. Alcohol use facilitates the cre-ation of masculine homosociality by developing a sense of com-munity and trust, and perpetuates certain kinds of Americanmasculine traditions. It facilitates and inhibits negotiationsover social boundaries and hierarchies of class, race/ethnicity,and sexuality. Status hierarchies get negotiated through com-petitive drinking games, humor, and heterosexual significa-tions. Male alcohol subcultures enact, contradict, negotiate,and challenge a society’s masculinities in complex and diverseways in this ethnography done on the West Coast.

Key Words: alcohol subcultures, masculinity negotiations,homosocial leisure cultures, male alcohol use, college fraterni-ties, U.S. Navy men.

371

The author acknowledges support for this research from a post-doctoral fellowship from the NationalInstitute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse through the Prevention Research Center, Berkeley, Califor-nia. She thanks Robert Saltz, Peggy McClure of the Military Family Institute, and panel participants at the1997 American Sociological Association Toronto convention for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Lois A. West, Department of Sociology andAnthropology, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199 or [email protected].


Alcohol drinking behaviors are important sites for understanding how masculinitiesget socially constructed and negotiated. Men’s studies scholars such as Connell(1995) and Kimmel (1996) argue that there are multiple masculinities in which dom-inant (or what Connell calls “hegemonic”) masculinities get socially constructed andworked out in relationship to non-dominant, subordinated masculinities. Masculini-ties are beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors associated with what it means to bemale in a society. Dominant masculinities are those elements of males that a societyviews as most important to being male which work in relationship to elements soci-ety views as being antithetical to maleness. For example, dominant maleness inAmerican society consists of values of achievement, aggression, toughness, andhardness. Since achievement in American society means making a great deal ofmoney and being “successful” at a career, these meanings get attached to what itmeans to be an American man.

This article demonstrates that drinking cultures are places where a variety ofmasculinities get worked out in homosocial leisure activities associated with drink-ing. These activities include drinking games, particular forms of male joking andbantering, watching or playing sports, sexual encounters with women, and the act of“being drunk.” In male homosocial alcohol subcultures, social hierarchies andboundaries that create masculinities get discussed, reinforced, or breached duringleisure activities. Two American subcultures, the fraternity and U.S. Navy, are note-worthy for alcohol use, for how men say they use alcohol and what it means to themin relation to their masculinity, and for their alcohol-related behaviors. While thegendered division of labor in formal organizations such as the workplace has somehistory of analysis (see Alvesson & Due Billing, 1997), less has been written aboutthe creation of gendered divisions of leisure as seen in alcohol use from the actorsthemselves (Sulkunen, Alasuutari, Natkin, & Kinnunen, 1997).

“Drinking with the boys” enables men to segregate by gender and by choice.Drinking males create a masculine “in-group” that defines what masculinity meansto the group based on the meanings of dominant masculinities of the subgroup andof the society. This act of definition also defines the “out-group” as those who arenot included in the gender- and age-segregated drinking group (e.g., not male, notyoung, not heterosexual). Reskin (2000) argues that the act of defining in-group andout-group behaviors sets conditions for gender and race discrimination but that theprocesses are intrapsychic—conscious and unconscious. Alcohol use facilitates orexacerbates unconscious behaviors as individuals can lose control over their bodieswhen they drink to excess. It also contributes to male bonding behaviors and togroup cohesion. Same-sex groupings come to define gender for the group throughindividuals’ interactions. The group also develops a “groupthink” that gets rein-forced and replicated over time through social institutions and contributes to gendersegregation (for the nature of gender segregation, see Maccoby, 1998).

The college fraternity and the U.S. Navy are noteworthy sites for gender segre-gation and alcohol use. During the 1990s, the college fraternity and U.S. Navy com-bat units shared certain social characteristics: they were all-male (the fraternity bychoice, certain Navy combat units by edict); and they shared a leisure culture reputa-tion for heavy drinking and casual, non-relational sex with women.1 They have beensites of social problems including hazing and alcohol-related deaths and date rape.

372

LOIS A. WEST

Both the fraternity rush and U.S. Navy boot camp have had initiation rites of passagefor young men that serve to build homosocial communities and reinforce gender seg-regation (see Raphael, 1988; for terrible outcomes of hazing, see Nuwer, 1980,1999). There is evidence that problems of aggression against women get facilitatedby male alcohol use in particular kinds of fraternities: those which demonstrate cer-tain characteristics that make them “high risk” compared to fraternities consideredsafer for women, or “low risk” (Boswell & Spade, 1998). These high-risk character-istics include greater alcohol use, more demonstrations of male aggression, and agreater degree of gender segregation. The U.S. Navy has been particularly notewor-thy for charges of sexual improprieties against women involving both enlisted menand officers. The U.S. Navy’s 1991 Tailhook scandal linked sexual aggressionagainst women to male alcohol use (West 1994; for an account of the scandal, seeZimmerman, 1995).

While gender-related social problems were prevalent in the 1990s, U.S. Navyenlisted ranks were becoming increasingly racially and ethnically diverse (Fuentes &Pexton, 1994), and college undergraduates were encouraged and given many choicesof living in ethnically and gender diverse environments (Herszenhorn, 1999). By1999, universities such as Dartmouth, which were trying to make their cultures lessdominated by weekend fraternity alcohol cultures and more socially diversified,were having mixed results. Yet many fraternities and U.S. Navy men still seek tomaintain gender segregation. But in their use of alcohol in everyday life, men negoti-ate both dominant and subordinated masculinities within real-life everyday experi-ences of increasing cultural diversity. Some researchers suggest that increasingdiversity in fraternities and the military gets reflected in more integration in drinkingsubcultures and leisure activities. Murdock (1998, p. 8) speculates that the genderintegration of drinking rituals “speaks of the elimination of a masculine subculturebased on exclusivity, inebriety, and violence within the United States” (see also Gut-mann, 1996, on gender integration in drinking in Mexico). The argument that greatergender integration leads to a lessening of male-dominant, status-seeking behaviors isstill open to question. But the point here is that masculinities are complex and what itmeans to be a man in a society gets worked out in male alcohol use.

American culture has linked “being a man” (dominant masculinities) with alco-hol use. Toughness means being able to “hold your liquor” or drink vast quantities(binge drinking) without serious social consequences. Cultural themes of being ableto fight if challenged play out daily in the media and in bars as a man seeks to main-tain his sense of his masculinity. Alcohol use enables non-relational sexuality—being able “to get a girl” for sex, homosociality, and “having fun” where drinkingwith the boys is very different from drinking with the girls. These cultural themeshave become a part of fraternity and U.S. Naval homosocial traditions that getpassed down through generations. For example as we shall see, drinking games arepart of cultural folklore that American males share whether they are in the militaryor in fraternities.

Yet masculinities can be contradictory, challenged, paradoxical, and, in otherwords, quite complex. For example, men can express deeply felt emotions whendrunk (“crying in your beer”) even to their buddies (homosocial love with sexual

373

NEGOTIATING MASCULINITIES IN AMERICAN DRINKING SUBCULTURES

undertones or threats, and the social construction of fictive “brotherhood”). They canchallenge racial, sexual or class stereotypes, and opt out of a capitalist work ethic (asKimmel, 1996, has described the theme of the American “self-made man”). A domi-nant American masculinity requires self-control, efficiency, and a work ethic foreconomic and social achievement, yet alcohol can undermine these behaviors.

From the founding of the United States, alcohol use has been a definer of Amer-ican masculinity. Kimmel (1996) states that “[I]n the first decades of the nineteenthcentury, American men went on a national bender” (p. 49). By 1830, hard liquorconsumption averaged 9.5 gallons a year for every American male over fourteen,and by 1894, New York City had one saloon for every 200 residents. However, for a“self-made man” to become a successful capitalist, he needed an ethic of self-controlthat alcohol use undermined. Murdock argues that the male alcohol leisure cultureonly developed in the early 19th century with the saloon. Earlier, male alcohol usewas commonplace in the workplace where alcohol was sometimes cheaper andcleaner than water and even given to men by their employers. Men would imbibeduring work breaks until the split between work and leisure developed. This splitappears to coincide with the 19th century separate-spheres split in the public fromthe private that placed women in the home and men in the workplace.

As women became the keepers of the family, women reformers organizedagainst male alcohol use because of its threat to the male wage earner and familyman. As Ginsburg (1998) has noted, “[B]y the early nineteenth century ... alcoholincreasingly was identified with saloons, a social space designated as a male worldwhere wages were spent on liquor, gambling and prostitution” (p. 206). Women’sorganized moral reform efforts (e.g., the American Female Moral Reform Society)against alcohol and prostitution eventually led to an era of alcohol prohibition (1920-1933). Consequently, American male “drinking became an expression of masculineprotest against feminization at the same time as it was an artisanal protest againstproletarianization” (Kimmel, 1996, p. 50). Kimmel calls this “masculinism,” whichwas an effort to restore “manly vigor and revirilize American men by promoting sep-arate homosocial preserves where men can be men without female interference” (p.384). Even with women’s entrance into the bars and the “domestication of drink” inthe home in the “cocktail hour” (Murdock, 1998), two arenas—the male fraternityand military on-base and off-base clubs—continued a tradition of homosocial envi-ronments where males could “drink with their buddies.” No preserves of maleleisure culture were better established than fraternities and the American bar.

METHOD

The data for this study are based on in-depth ethnographic fieldwork at a large U.S.West Coast public university and at a U.S. Navy installation in the 1990s followingthe Navy Tailhook scandal but before the move to gender-integrate the military. Thestudy consisted of interviews, focus groups, and participant observation at five of theuniversity’s fraternities and with enlisted men from an all-male U.S. Navy air combatunit. Eight fraternity men (age 19-21) and nine low-ranking enlisted U.S. Navy men(age 21-28) were interviewed on average for an hour and a half. Both groups wereracially and ethnically diverse (two Chinese-American men and one Native American

374

LOIS A. WEST

fraternity man among the fraternity white men; two African American, one Panaman-ian, one Filipino of the enlisted men), although racial diversity differed in the frater-nities with some being more diverse than others. In one of the houses where I did afocus group, I was struck by its diversity including disabled and minority men.

What distinguished fraternity from U.S. Navy men was class: while all the fra-ternity men identified themselves as middle or upper middle/upper class, only one ofthe enlisted men said he was upper-middle class. The U.S. Navy men were middle,working class or defined themselves as lower class.

Marital/relationship status also differed: while the fraternity men I interviewedreported they had no children; of the enlisted men, four reported they had children.One of the enlisted men said that he felt men joined the Navy because “They thinkthey are going to get in the military and childbirth is going to be that much lessexpensive than it would be on the outside.” Most of the enlisted men were clerks orsecretaries, and two were aviation electricians, while college men said they were infraternities to look for, as men in one fraternity put it, future “business connections.”

At the university, interviews were conducted in the residential fraternity houseson “Fraternity Row” close to campus. Interviews were also conducted with on-cam-pus student affairs’ officers, intrafraternity council officers (fraternity presidents whocoordinate fraternity affairs with the university) and alcohol studies’ specialists.Focus groups were held in the fraternities with groups of fraternity men. Two upper-division college women did participant observation of alcohol parties at the houses,and I observed house meetings. In the military, daytime interviews were conductedat a steak house adjacent to the military base when the men were off-duty. Addi-tional interviews were done with a ROTC colonel at the university and alcohol anddrug specialists at an Army base and at the U.S. Navy installation. I observed anofficers’ club bar and several off-base bars. I had also done participant observation atoff-base bars at Subic Naval Base, the Philippines, in the late 1980s.

I secured clearance from the university’s human subjects committee andadhered to protocols and signed consents. In both cases, I went the informal route togetting interviews that allowed me to avoid formal social control mechanisms. Theuniversity fraternities had been subjects of previous studies that had made theiralumni wary of policy outcomes from such studies (see Wittman, 1989, for thenature of the problems). At the university, several alcohol-related deaths of fraternitymen and date rape charges led the Vice Chancellor to meet with the Greek commu-nity in 1991. The university’s response was to eliminate Thursday night parties,develop education programs on alcohol, date rape, and sexual harassment awareness,and outlaw mixed drinks at beer-only parties. Fraternities were required to have alicensed security person, a trained bartender, food available at parties, and identifica-tion wristbands for party attendees who were now invited by guest list only. Severalfraternity chapters mandated no keg policies and educational programs like “MyBrother’s Keeper.” By the late 1990s, universities such as Dartmouth were trying tomake their cultures less dominated by weekend fraternity alcohol cultures and moresocially diversified (see Herszenhorn, 1999), yet alcohol-related deaths still occurred(Nuwer, 1999).

For the U.S. Navy, I was told my request for interviews had gone as far as theAdmiral, but because of the Tailhook scandal there was no optimism about my


375

chances for access (see Department of Defense Inspector General, 1993). My samplereferred to Tailhook as “the big stink.” During the last 30 years, the U.S. Navy hasgenerated greater social controls over alcohol and drugs. “Top down” directivesinstruct all personnel on what they must do to receive an honorable discharge andstay out of trouble. The U.S. Navy has an alcohol and drug program that moved fromproviding social services to increasingly “zero-tolerance” including random manda-tory drug checks and “command sweeps” for everybody. Being busted for an inci-dent would mean mandatory alcohol education (NADSAP—Navy Alcohol/DrugSafety Action Program), and all personnel have mandatory sexual harassment train-ing and must carry identification cards at all times.

These ethnographic methods, while suggestive and not representative of a largesample, enable themes to emerge from two very different samples that shared littleexcept social characteristics like masculinity and alcohol use. The links betweendominant masculinities and alcohol use are seen in references to the media andthrough the perpetuation of gender segregated and hierarchical traditions. Subordi-nate masculinities or challenges to what is dominant get worked out in alcohol-related behaviors like drinking games, humor, and sexuality.

CREATING MASCULINE HOMOSOCIALITY

Men talked about self-selecting to keep part of their lives exclusively male. As oneChinese-American fraternity member said of his living arrangement:

What makes a fraternity? It’s more like hanging out with the guys.Sports, things guys like to do most of the time, sports. Girls don’tlike to play football and sports in general. It’s hard to get girls outat ten o’clock at night to play basketball.

An upper-middle-class fraternity president who considered himself in one of the“top” houses argued:

Our fraternity is one of the leaders in keeping fraternities all male.Right now we’ve got a couple of lawsuits against the universitiesaround the country. All guys wouldn’t feel comfortable living withwomen in a group setting. It lets people be more themselves to bearound just males. Because everything you have is in common andyou don’t have the sexual pressure there. There’s no problem withthe fact that there’s gotta be separate bathrooms and separate thisand separate that. I mean everything’s together. I think peopleshould have the choice to live within the kind of setting theywanna live. That’s what our country was based on is the fact thatyou can choose. This fraternity’s choice is to be single-sex.

For another Jewish upper-class man, becoming co-ed would:

LOIS A. WEST

376

take away from the brotherhood, the male bonding. It’s a group ofguys that have been through the same treacherous experience that Iwent through, which is pledging. There are secretive things likethe handshake and the Chapter Room where no one else has been.It’s a place to live, a place to come back to once you’re alumni, aplace to meet people for business opportunities.

Much of what goes on in the recreation of fraternity culture is taken for granted.One man described fraternity life as:

… watching TV. Maybe drinking a couple of beers. Talk aboutsports. Talk about women. Talk about everything. Hanging outtogether. Playing sports together. Living together. Eating dinnertogether. Cleaning together. I’ve never thought about why wechoose to do it all as guys together.

Alcohol use provides the social glue for fraternities and provides community ina social environment where there may be none. As one man put it:

We were supposed to have a party at another fraternity and at thelast minute they canceled it, so we just had like our own party atour house like spontaneous and everyone just sitting around, andthat’s bonding. Things like that I think you have to basically bondthrough adversity because there’s not really too much, not manypeople you know, in our house, would be friends other than thefact that they’re in the same fraternity. Everyone is so different.

What did “difference” mean? Many things, but certainly increasing culturaldiversity. One young Anglo man provided a break down of the cultural diversity ofhis fraternity which he said was 85 percent Caucasian—with guys from Bolivia,Peru, five Asian Americans, two Mexican Americans and one African American.What the men could share was not their ethnicity, but their masculinity that would bereinforced in the fraternity environment. He also noted that what they learn in thefraternity is their future in a male-dominated workplace:

When you join the house, you also take part in the leadership ofthat house. You learn a lot about how to deal with all kinds of dif-ferent people, different backgrounds. I think it’s great for thefuture, just because it’s gonna be the same thing you’re doing inbusiness. It really teaches you how to work with big groups of peo-ple and how to get your views across without, you know, puttingdown other people’s views. It really teaches you [how to] work alltogether. There’s a lot of goals. A lot of people overlook the factthat fraternities are just as much a business as they are a social cul-ture. Your bills have to get paid and you’ve gotta be running a bal-anced budget or you’re not gonna be around for very long.

377


Through alcohol and partying behaviors, social bonding goes on in an informal way,just as taking care of the business of the fraternity provides the formal structureswithin which diverse men can come together for common goals. In this sense, alco-hol is one informal “glue” to assist in developing social cohesion.

During the 1990s, U.S. Naval units which had women were called “rag outfits”by the men interviewed here (the first woman to command a combat ship happenedonly in 2000, Thompson, 2000). Masculinity creates its own kind of in-group. AnAfrican-American aviation electrician saw both women and homosexuals as notbelonging in the military because of the problems they cause:

I worked in a squadron before where they had women. Womencause a lot of problems. If you’re hitting on a woman she can callit sexual harassment. You know, you probably slept with her occa-sionally and she can call rape or whatever. I feel in the Navythey’re gonna start letting females on carrier ships now. I’ll workwith women, but you’re gonna have to separate the ship into threedifferent levels because women have to wash up and clean andtidy up, you know. For the same reason you’re gonna have to havea floor for homosexuals. They’re gonna have to put anotheramendment in the Constitution whereas if you’re in the military,you can’t sleep with your workers. How do I feel about gays in themilitary? P-L-E-A-S-E! First of all, you eat with men, go outdrinking with men, party with men. You work and sleep with men,you know indirectly. I don’t want no homosexual in my quarterswatching me undress and change.

An Anglo personnel clerk who had spent a lot of time on ships echoed theseremarks:

I really don’t feel like a woman should fight as far as go to war. Ithink that’s more of a man’s job. If there was [sic] women on moreships there’d be a lot of pregnant women and a lot of court mar-tials going on for that. In a confined area on a ship out at sea formonths at a time you could run into a problem.

When I was on this ship there was a female pilot landed on our car-rier, a helicopter pilot. She come down through the hanger bay. We’dbeen out to sea for three months, hadn’t seen no woman. She comewalking through the hanger bay and a guy down there was doing hisstretches gonna jog around the hangar bay. He looked at her, and shesaid some pretty vulgar things to him. She said, “Do you want someof this?” Just ’cause he looked at her. So he wrote her up and she gotin trouble. She got real, real vulgar with him on that subject becausehe was looking at her. He looked at her and said, “Hey, what’s a girldoing on here?” And she took it the wrong way.

LOIS A. WEST

378

By the turn of the century the military was moving toward increasing genderintegration, yet informal attitudes of men resisted females and homosexuals becausethese groups challenge the dominant masculinities ensconced in traditional Ameri-can manhood.

CONTINUING MASCULINE TRADITION

Tradition was cited by both samples as an important reason for maintaining gendersegregation in part because of the nature of the institution as a masculine rite of pas-sage. As a Chinese-American biology major said:

I don’t think [co-ed fraternities] would work out very well becauseit would just break tradition. These people are really conservative.I wouldn’t mind living in a co-ed fraternity, but I wouldn’t wantthe frat members to teach the women all the teachings. Becausehow would you say “brotherhood?” What do you say likebrother—“sisterhood?” You have to change all the traditionsaround. It just wouldn’t work out very well.

For Navy men, the drinking culture has been an important part of its tradition.As an Anglo enlisted men put it:

My granddad was in the Navy before me. As an enlisted man hewas stationed in Okinawa on a PT boat and he said those guys inthe larger ships would be just wild and he said, “Watch out for itwhen you join the Navy!” And it’s [still] true.

For a 22-year-old Navy secretary, “anywhere there’s a Navy installation” there willbe a male drinking culture.

I go to this fort in Louisiana and it’s like out in the woods. Youtake this road and all of a sudden there’s like a little town and it’sall bars. I think that’s pretty much how it is in every place becauseI mean it’s like a tradition. You know the sailor goes out, been atsea for this many months, and he goes out and he goes gets drunk.

These American men gender segregate their drinking patterns: they drink differ-ently with men than with women. How much this has to do with men’s greater con-sumption tolerance was left unresolved by this sample, but in both groups, men would“pre-party.” They would drink with other men before they would go to a party, a bar,or a sporting event where there were women. Fraternity men were not allowed to drinkat football games, so they would drink before. Enlisted men would drink before goingto a club to save money since drinks at clubs could be costly. In one case, an enlistedman passed “a bottle of Cisco” around before he began clubbing, but the extensivedrinking led to a black-out and he had no idea how he landed in jail, what happened tohim or to his drinking friend who had also disappeared that weekend.

A fraternity man explained gender-segregated drinking:

379


With guys hanging around, you let your inhibitions more go away.They just kinda do what they want to do like male bonding kind ofstuff, just getting wild and crazy. We feel that you have to be a lit-tle more careful and watch what we do and you don’t want to looklike a total idiot with women. With your close guy friends, theydon’t really care what you do. They respect you as a friend andyou can do whatever you want. With women you have to alwayswatch out.

What “watch out” means was not entirely clear. But it certainly had the connota-tions of women as the moral agents of men echoing the 19th century separatespheres doctrines of women as the social control agents of men. Alternatively, itreflects a notion of a loss of control sexually as is seen in various media portrayals ofwhat happens when men drink and let loose.

REFLECTING THE MEDIA’S MASCULINITIES

Media images of beer-drinking men watching sports dominate television sportsshows that are geared to male audiences (see Postman, 1987). In this sample, menreferred to specific films and alcohol advertisements when asked about their alcoholuse (see also Schreiber, 1993). But they challenged the alcohol stereotypes whilethey reinforced their homosociality. One Chinese-American fraternity man thoughtthat “The previous stereotype of fraternities of like ‘Animal House’ sort of types—the hazing, drinking, screwing around—gives a bad image. We learn good thingsabout trusting other people, having good friends, being interested in people.”Another Anglo said his fraternity was “not like a stereotypical fraternity like ‘Ani-mal House.’ It’s more of a fraternity that has a structure based not on alcohol or justpartying, more based on a diverse house. A group of guys with different goals butworking together to achieve these goals.”

A disappointed enlisted Navy personnel clerk said that he joined the Navybecause

I watched “Top Gun” too many times. I thought I was gonna be anF-15 pilot. I liked airplanes. I got a big thrill out of watching air-planes, seeing airplanes on TV. I pictured myself beside those air-planes, working on those airplanes, flying those airplanes. Ithought that’s what the Navy was all about. Learned different.

Motivated by media portrayals of gender segregation and homosocial brother-hood, masculine in-group behaviors develop around dominant cultural masculinitythemes that get passed on through the structures of the college fraternity and the U.S.Navy. But cultural diversity and subordinate masculinities get negotiated.

LOIS A. WEST

380

NEGOTIATING SOCIAL DIFFERENCES AND HIERARCHIES

Masculinism gets created and negotiated through social hierarchies, and these hierar-chies are fundamental to gender segregation. Hierarchies are created institutionallyon both formal and informal levels. Formally, social structures institutionalize hier-archy, but social hierarchies are re-created and negotiated informally in leisurechoices and cultures and through in-group/out-group behaviors. The fraternity distin-guishes between its formal regular members of the fraternity, the “actives,” from itspotential new members, its “pledges” who must go through “rush” in order to beselected to join the fraternity. Once selected, they experience a male rite of passage(traditionally known as “hazing”) in order to become an active. Once in the frater-nity, there is a status hierarchy of rank and position—president, vice president, rushchair, etc.

There are also informal hierarchies, and these hierarchies hold sway over behav-iors of members. Young men express feelings of anxiety over peer and social pres-sures related to competition. The negotiations that go on between males are deeplyrooted in racial, ethnic, class, sexuality, and ability divisions. These factors mirrorand replicate greater societal tensions. In the fraternities, the “cool” houses are the“top” houses that get their labeling depending on their racial make-up (“Most of thetop houses are completely white”), wealth, or the kinds of parties they have (“fun” ornot—that is related to wealth in the sense that more money pays for greater enter-tainment, better alcohol, etc.). Lesser houses are “dweeb” or losers that do not mea-sure up to the “standards” of these informal hierarchies. A 21-year-old Jewish engi-neering student described it:

I consider us a top house. We do things with other sororities. Ithink it’s more important for us to have a good reputation among alot of people. I don’t think anybody badmouths our house. I meanpeople badmouth a lot of fraternities for saying “That house iscomplete losers. They got one pledge this semester.” We’vealways had strong rush. We’ve always had a good reputation. Agood house depends on your perspective. From the Greek systempoint of view a good house is a rich white house with Blair andBiff and Tad. That’s a good Greek house. And the terrible ones arethe more racially integrated. You’ll find the more racially inte-grated usually the lower the house goes down the scale, I think.

A Chinese-American frat member said that a third or a quarter of men who hadgone through rush that year were Asian American. But:

The amount of Asians that stayed in rush and stayed in the houseswere like ten percent. So it’s a big difference. In the top housesthere are fifteen pledges and one Asian in there. It’s still raciallyisolated. What I expect is the houses that are already somewhatracially diverse will attract certain minorities more and thosehouses will grow in number. Like our house has grown from like


381

five percent Asian to a quarter Asian. Those houses will grow evenmore, might even be half Asian, half minorities. Whereas the otherhouses will stay like maybe five percent Asian or minorities orwhatever.

The level of choice young men exercise in joining fraternities contrasts sharplywith the U.S. military, where a lack of choice is related to discipline, social control,and socioeconomic differences. Militaries maintain strict hierarchies in order to pro-vide societies with a ready fighting force. Fighters must be able to follow ordersquickly and without question because the danger of war situations necessitates anability to act without negotiations and counterarguments: human lives and the suc-cess of the mission are at stake. Recruits enter and go through basic training as a riteof passage, and one’s ability to move up the ranks is based on ability to conform tothe formal rules and structures that strictly demarcate the enlisted person from theofficer. Such a strict system begins as exclusionary. Military logic argues that homo-sexuals, those with medical disabilities, and women in combat are kept out in orderto maintain discipline and social order.

Military men create informal hierarchies that are based on jobs and drinkingbehaviors. In the Navy, “brown shoe” jobs are jobs of airmen who “work for themaintenance of the aircraft or actually on the bird.” “Black shoe” jobs are “being aseaman that’s kind of like administrative or anything that would deal with the main-tenance of a boat.”

Sailors who drink and party too much are “squids.”

When I was on a ship out of Newport, Rhode Island, before I camehere, most of the machinist mates, all the engineering people werethe squids. They were the ones that always, always got in trouble.They were always drinking, always getting busted for something.

The U.S. military mandates racial and increasingly gender integration, althoughwomen are numerically a minority. Yet it is in leisure spaces where segregationreappears: alcohol social behaviors are gender and racially segregated for bothgroups. A Chinese-American man distinguished between drinking in Taiwan anddrinking in the U.S. with his Chinese-American friends who are “Chinese on the out-side, basically Asian American like me, but raised with American values.”

My Chinese friends in Taiwan are basically the same as my whitefriends here. Basically [they share] the same idea of drinking andhaving fun. But Chinese are a lot more disciplined and drink a lotless, and a lot more goal oriented like the future. They’re not asengrossed in having immediate fun.

For one 22-year-old married African-American Navy man who is “the onlyblack in my office,” the other Navy men “treat me just like one of the guys, youknow. We got a nice little system up there.” But clubbing is a different matter, asanother African-American enlisted man said:

382

LOIS A. WEST

I’ll tell you like how the enlisted club is. For a black person to goto the club on Fridays and Saturdays, you wear a baseball capinside the E club, you get kicked out. But these white people, o.k.They can go to the club on Thursday night, cowboy night, countrynight. They can wear ten-gallon hats with the big buckle and theydon’t get charged to go into the club. The blacks have to pay threedollars as a cover charge just to go in. The on-base club, they’revery prejudiced. If it’s free, I’m in the Navy, why get charged?Actually I boycott it. I don’t even go there.

He goes to “hip-hop” clubs instead. But his perception of discrimination was realand clearly angered him. The structured inequalities were perpetuated in more subtleways such as these and can be unconscious according to Reskin (2000).

CONSTRUCTING LEISURE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Men negotiate subordinate masculinities and differences through particular playbehaviors related to alcohol use: physical aggression (barroom brawls and fights),game playing, joking and labeling, and sexual negotiations (most frequently in recre-ational, non-relational sexual contacts—see Levant and Brooks, 1997 for a discus-sion of non-relational sex).

In leisure activities, competitive and aggressive behaviors get escalated andworked out in drinking through ritual behaviors manifested in drinking games (seeDouglas, 1987; Newman et al., 1991; Pederson, 1990), drinking songs, or sexualcompetition. As one enlisted man put it: “It’s part of the competition. They get towhere they want to just outdo the other, whether it be drinking a lot or trying toimpress the girls.”

College and enlisted men reported playing similar competitive drinking gameswhere the game would be played in concert with shared drinking behaviors. Winnersor losers had to take a drink upon completion of a task. Beer Pong included drinkingbeer when a person would win or lose a round of ping-pong. Quarters involvedshooting pool, making plays, and then drinking to earn quarters. Both college andenlisted men reported playing card games called Hearts, poker, Kings, Cardsharks,Three Men (a dice game), Viking, Thumper, or Multiples of Three.

Nicknames are important to certain male groupings. In one drinking game, guyswould have to remember insulting slang nicknames as they drank: “Bullshit” entailedguys giving themselves insulting slang names like “ridshit,” “dogshit,” etc., whileothers had to remember and repeat the insult as they went around the circle. Oneenlisted man reported playing a game daring men to drink alcohol from a gas funnel.

Fights were reported in both groups as an escalation of competitive behaviors.The university outlawed Thursday night parties because of the numbers of outsiderswho would crash frat parties and start fights. One frat member in a rowdier housereported at least one fight per party. Another reported “thrashing” private propertywhen drunk: “There were fights. It was my pledge semester. There was a fight. Itwas broken up. It was over pretty quickly when they saw our whole house was

383


there.” Houses with fights are subject to “social probation,” as portrayed in the “Ani-mal House” film. A fraternity president explained it:

Guys tend to be more a lot more aggressive when they are drunkand, at least myself, I try to avoid being all that aggressive. Youknow women tend to walk away from violence. They really dislikeguys fighting in their presence. When guys get together when it’sjust guys, you tend to wrestle around. You know, not fist fights butjust fun wrestling around. When guys are together they act likekids basically.

An aviation electrician said he would not go to clubs for enlisted men because “Ireally don’t like it. There have been a lot of fights at the enlisted club. Barstools fly-ing through the air. Everybody just fighting. It was ridiculous.”

Competitive behaviors get worked out through joking and the use of humor.Walker (1998) argues that men use jokes to construct their masculinity because jokesreaffirm male values of friendship and generosity, affirm heterosexuality in situa-tions where levels of physical or emotional intimacy are culturally regarded asunmasculine, and to mediate disputes. In other words, jokes help to negotiate socialboundaries and subordinate masculinities. Jokes and labeling can also sustain genderdifferences and segregation especially when they denigrate women. In a study of fra-ternity humor, Lyman (1998) argued that

Male bonding in everyday life frequently takes the form of a groupjoking relationship by which men create a serial kind of intimacyto “negotiate” the tension and aggression they feel toward eachother. The humor of male bonding relationships generally is sexualand aggressive and frequently consists of sexist or racist jokes.

The women in Lyman’s sample did not like the sexual jokes that they felt denigratedthem, but men negotiate status hierarchy tensions through their jokes that get facili-tated with alcohol use.

One of the Chinese-American fraternity members responded to a question aboutwhat kinds of things men do together that they would not do with women, “We’rejust wrestling on the floor. I don’t know, just cracking jokes and stuff.” I asked if thejoking would mostly be about women. He responded, “Just derogatory jokes in gen-eral.” Examples? “It’s like racial jokes, jokes about women, stuff like that that guysjust don’t talk about when they aren’t drunk.” I asked, “When you say racial jokes,do they make jokes about Chinese?” He replied, “Yeah,” and I asked how he feltabout that. He said, “Sometimes I get offended, but usually I’m not, usually I justtake it in light humor in good humor because they’re just my friends. We’re just jok-ing around. I get made fun of a lot because I make fun of a lot of people, too, like ina party way.” I asked what would offend him, and he replied jokes about “what I canand what I can’t do.”

Social hierarchies over race and ability are ever present and frequently at thetaken-for-granted or unconscious levels. The way they get negotiated is through how

384

LOIS A. WEST

males treat each other, which includes put-downs and challenges over “what you canor can’t do.” The put-downs and racist/sexist comments address attitudes and stereo-typing directly. But being able to demonstrate through basketball and through alco-hol consumption that a man “can do” something undercuts the negative labeling andstereotyping, for it is negotiated as it gets literally acted out.

An Anglo enlisted man said that when they wanted to relate to each other, “a lotof times we get to work and say, ‘Hey did you hear such and such a joke?’” I askedfor an example of a joke that one would not ordinarily tell a female. He asked me notto be embarrassed by it, and he recounted the following:

It’s kind of disgusting, but I’ll share it with you. This Marinewalks into the bathroom. He walks in in his dress blues, all proud,strutting around, got his hat on, goes into the bathroom. This littlekid walks in and says, “Gosh mister, are you a real Marine?” TheMarine looks down and says, “Yes, sure am, son. Want to wearmy hat?” “Yeah,” says the kid. Puts on the hat, checks himself outin the mirror, and walks around all proud. This drunk sailor comesin and starts pissing all over the walls. Little kid looks up and says,“Gosh, mister, are you a real sailor?” Sailor says, “Yeah kid, youwant to suck my dick?” Kid replies, “No, I’m not a real Marine;I’m just wearing the hat.” So that’s the kind of jokes we tell, youknow.

CONSTRUCTING HETEROSEXUALITY

Male alcohol use gets linked to sexuality both in portrayals in the media and inmen’s explained behaviors and sexual competition. Studies demonstrate how alcoholuse influences the measurement of “attractiveness” for both sexes (George &McAfee, 1987; Gladue & Delaney, 1990). Both college men and women say theyuse alcohol to loosen up, “relax,” as a “disinhibiter” and “social lubricant”(Schreiber, 1993, p. 126). Most frequently, however, alcohol in bar and party behav-iors gets linked to recreational, non-relational sex.

Both my samples reported getting “beer courage” or “liquid courage” fromdrinking alcohol that allowed them to initiate conversations with women. Alcoholuse constructs emotions of bravery and overcomes fears and insecurities young menhave toward women. A 21-year-old fraternity vice president put it like so:

It’s just you feel really social when you drink. You feel part of,you feel accepted because everyone else is drinking so you’redrinking. It loosens your inhibitions. You have what they call beercourage. You can talk to people easier [even] people you nevermet before.

In other words, one can dampen feelings of competition, in-group/out-group differ-ence and status hierarchies, and sexual tension through alcohol. An aviation electri-cian said:


385

You’ve probably heard the slogan “liquid courage?” Most of theguys I know don’t like to dance. I don’t really like to dance. Sothey probably feel if you drink some you’ll have enough courageto get there on the dance floor and not worry about what other peo-ple are thinking. ’Cause a lot of times that’s what guys are worriedabout. I know I am sometimes. Like I don’t want anybody laugh-ing at me or saying, “Hey, look at the way he’s dancing.” I haven’treally been worried about that in the past. I really wasn’t worriedabout that last night. I didn’t have to drink anything or not much ofanything to prove that I could dance. I think a lot of guys like toimpress the girls just by drinking and kind of like a macho imagewith the guy asking, “Yeah, come on and drink some beer.”

Alcohol use also is seen as a disinhibiter to having sex, but the sex is of a non-relational kind. Neither group of men looks for relationships in the alcohol use con-text. In her study of fraternities, Schreiber found fraternity party themes linked alco-hol use to the availability of sex—“An ‘Hawaiian Social’ is billed as a ‘chance to get‘leid’” (Schreiber, 1993, p. 119). She describes another party where the advertise-ment was:

“Bad drinks in Hell and better drinks in Heaven.”...You startupstairs ... the first drink will be something like a Jell-O shot ...and the alcohol gets stronger and stronger as you go down to thebasement ... and that is like the “Red-light area.” (p. 118)

Fraternities have long linked alcohol use with getting sex as seen in their drinkingsongs. In a 1968 fraternity song book of drinking songs and “gross songs,” the Quar-termaster’s Song refrain goes “Sherry makes you feel up Mary, Gin makes you wantto win, Booze makes you want to lose, Hay makes you want to lay” (White, 1968).In this sample, a Chinese-American fraternity man joked that, “Shakespeare saidsomething that it increases the urge and lessens the performance” for men.

Research links alcohol use to sexual aggression and predatory sexuality by men(particularly date rape on campuses, see Copenhaver & Grauerholz, 1991; Sanday,1991). This means that sex in an age of deadly sexually transmitted diseases involvesfeelings of danger that reinforce insecurities for both males and females. Even in thissmall sample, a fraternity senior explained his feelings over the rape of his younger,college-aged sister after an alcohol party at her university:

My little sister was raped last year, and it wasn’t by a fraternitymember. She met the guy that night. She went to bed, and the guybroke into her room and forced himself on her. She was in afriend’s house. She didn’t know the guy’s last name, so theycouldn’t find him. I’ve known several people to whom that’s hap-pened, and I think the statistics that they come out with are proba-bly thirty percent low. It happens a lot. It’s very difficult becausethe stigma that a woman has on her if she presses charges is very,

LOIS A. WEST

386

very hard to deal with. My sister had a lot of problems with thatstigma. She didn’t want that stigma placed on her. It’s just unfortu-nately women are seen as dirty or that sort of thing after that typeof activity happening to them. I had a lot of anger and mixed feel-ings of wanting to go down there and hunt the guy down and a lotof revenge factor like plastering the guy’s name all over schoolsaying this guy’s a rapist. But see that puts my sister in dangerbecause the guy will definitely come after her. I mean, that’s kindof slandering the guy’s name. She did report it. She went to thepolice and everything. But you know, she had been drinking andshe was underage and you know that right there you’d get killed inthe courts for it.

Discrimination against women is linked to alcohol behaviors in relation to sexu-ality: both sets of men said that the sexual double standard was very much in evi-dence in relation to alcohol use—women who drink too much and are sexually avail-able are still viewed as the “hos” (whores) to be distinguished from women who areone’s “good friends.” Both men and women perpetuate these stereotypes even whenthey are confronted with the dangers of this labeling on their own sisters or their ownracial group. One Chinese-American frat man explained the tensions he felt when hesaw Chinese-American women dating Anglo men on his campus:

You see a Caucasian male going out with an Asian female more sothan an Asian male going out with a Caucasian female. I person-ally know a lot of girls who have that reputation of being “ho” thatare Asian and hang out with white guys, and that really bothers mea lot.

I asked if this was just because they hang out with white guys or because they have abad reputation. His response was that “It’s sexual. [Asian women say,] ‘He’s in soand so house.’ They are social climbing.” In his rendition, Asian American womenwere using sex with Anglo men in “top houses” to gain in the social hierarchies.Alcohol use provided the means by which inhibitions could be loosened so that sex-ual predation (or sexual liberation or experimentation depending on your point ofview) could be enacted by both sexes. But even who one had sex with defined one’ssocial status within the fraternity world as it did in the military world where prosti-tutes were found in off-military base bars and women are less in control of sexualpredation by drinking military men.

DISCUSSION

Drinking cultures are the means by which American men negotiate masculinities in aculture of leisure. Men create gender-segregated spaces of leisure for a variety ofreasons. According to this sample, they want to develop a sense of community andsocial trust; they have a need for a level of comfort and lack of danger that they findwith some men and not with women or other men; they have a desire to perpetuate a


387

masculinized tradition, and a desire to control one’s space and sexuality; they wantto develop experience for adulthood. American dominant masculinities include gen-der-segregated spaces where negotiations take place over social hierarchies based oneconomic class, race/ethnicity, and what it means to be masculine and not feminine.Lower status people in society represent subordinate masculinities or non-masculini-ties. Status hierarchies get negotiated through competitive games, humor, and het-erosexual significations—what one can or cannot do, with whom one can or cannotdrink and play or have sex. Alcohol use associated with humor and competitivebehaviors are forms of leisure and play that allow differences in status to be workedout. Men don’t drink with women and then play sports or certain drinking games.Certain men drink in bars of country music, others drink differently and listen to hip-hop. From the styles of interaction to one’s living spaces, men reinforce Americanmasculinities of the fraternity and U.S. Navy that become a part of tradition.

How much this has to do with biologically innate male needs that take certainkinds of social forms and how much of these behaviors are socially constructed isstill open to question. Certainly a critical element in the negotiation of dominant andsubordinate masculinities may be the level of gender segregation found in alcoholsubcultures. Murdock (1998) found late 20th century alcohol behaviors more genderintegrated than in the 19th century, but she suggests that a more relevant contempo-rary factor may be age more than gender:

The historic connection between drink and masculinity, while stillpresent, has blessedly eased.... The abusive drinking of underageand legal-age Americans in many ways parallels men’s abusivedrinking in the nineteenth century. Just as males historically haveused drinking to define their manhood, these drinkers use alcoholto define their adulthood. While women make up a third of AAmembership, the number of younger women and men alcoholics isalmost equal. This parity seems to stem not from gender anxietybut from a desperate search by teens and twenty-somethings forsome mantle of adult identity. (p. 173)

In spite of the claim that age may be more relevant than gender, this study hassought to demonstrate that masculinities are still being defined through alcohol behav-iors and subcultures. Age and life course experience may be equally relevant to factorsof gender and ethnicity, but masculinity is still defined by hard drinking, casual sex,aggression, and competition. Fraternity men said they joined their fraternity with aneye to their career future. U.S. Navy men as well had career aspirations that theywanted to fulfill. In both samples, males were of that age where abusive drinking ismost linked to sexual predation and aggression and where more problems seem toarise from abusive drinking than with other age groups. Alcohol subcultures are stillhighly gendered, and gender is important to understanding social behaviors such asnegotiations over competition and status hierarchies. In fact gender may be a moresalient or primal evolutionary reason for the creation of status hierarchies than capital-ism or ethnicity. But cross-cultural work would need to be done to test this hypothesis.

388

LOIS A. WEST

Male alcohol subcultures enact, contradict, negotiate, and challenge a society’smasculinities in complex and diverse ways while these cultures reinforce certainkinds of dominant masculinities: from the social segregation of the sexes (drinkingwith boys versus drinking with girls) to traditional sexuality definitions (good girlsand whores, the sexually predatory male). The Chinese-American fraternity man wasuncomfortable with jokes about Chinese but was more uncomfortable over mas-culinity challenges of what he could or could not do—and these were linked for him.

Maccoby (1998) argues that when women must negotiate with men in groupsrather than as individuals “male groups tend to be stronger in a number of respectsthan female groups, and the power differential between the sexes is greater whenmales have formed cohesive groups, as they usually do in the workplace” (p. 302).Cohesive male leisure groups exclude women and out-group men. There is nothinginherently problematic with hierarchy or segregation until the structures cause orcreate social behaviors that disadvantage and threaten—as when alcohol use orabuse is a factor in sexual aggression and gay bashing. I would argue that the use ofalcohol is less relevant than the characteristics of masculinity associated with malegroup behaviors. Alcohol may disinhibit men from acting on unconscious emotions,but those emotions of sexual aggression are created within a social context in whichheterosexuality is accepted and homosexuality is not—where men are still privilegedin sexual relations with women (they can sleep around but women can’t) or wherewomen find they cannot or do not negotiate on equal terms. It is not always aboutpower, but when the negotiations over masculinities and competition are so uncon-scious and lead to social problem behaviors (whether because of age/ethnicity/gen-der), American society needs to address the taken-for-granted behaviors and struc-tures as well as the problem behaviors. In an increasingly diverse society, leisurebehaviors of choice may be the sites where dominant and subordinate masculinitiesget played out in revealing ways for gender studies, and this article suggests themesof certain kinds of American masculinities in the late 20th century.

NOTE

1. See the 1994 Harvard School of Public Health survey that reported that 44percent of college students engage in binge drinking (Wechler et al., 1994; also,Berkowitz & Perkins 1987; Perkins 1992); see worldwide military survey for inci-dence (Bray et al., 1992). See Levant and Brooks (1997) for a definition and discus-sion of non-relational sex for men.

REFERENCES

Alvesson, M., & Due Billing, Y. (1997). Understanding gender and organizations.London: Sage Publications.

Berkowitz, A. D., & Perkins H. W. (1987). Recent research on gender differences incollegiate alcohol use. Journal of American College Health, 36, 123-129.

Boswell, A. A., & Spade, J. Z. (1998). Fraternities and collegiate rape culture: Whyare some frats more dangerous places for women? In M. S. Kimmel & M. A.Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp. 182-193). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.


389

Bray, R. M., Larry, A. K., Luckey, J. W, Wheeless, S. C., Iannacchione, V. G.,Anderson, D. W., Marsden, M. E., & Dunteman, G. H.. (1992). 1992 worldwidesurvey of substance abuse and health behaviors among military personnel.North Carolina: Research Triangle Institute.

Buchanan, D. R., & Lev, J. (1988). Beer and fast cars: How brewers target blue-col-lar youth through motor sport sponsorships. San Rafael, CA: Marin Institute forthe Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems.

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Copenhaver, S., & Grauerholz, E. (1991). Sexual victimization among sorority

women: Exploring the link between sexual violence and institutional practices.Sex Roles 21, 1-2, 31-41.

Department of Defense Inspector General. (1993). Tailhook 91, Part 2: Events at the35th annual Tailhook symposium. Washington, DC: Assistant Inspector Generalfor Investigations, U.S. Department of Defense.

Douglas, P. (1987). Bizz-buzz, turtles, quarters, and one horse club, the role ofdrinking games among high school and college students. Alcohol Health andResearch World, II(4), 54-92.

Driessen, H. (1992). Drinking on masculinity: Alcohol and gender in Andalusia. InD. Gefou-Medianon (Ed.), Alcohol, culture and gender (pp. 71-79). London:Routledge.

Fuentes, G., & Pexton, P. (1994. December 5). Looking like America, Navy Times,pp. 12-13.

Gefou-Medianon, D. (1992). Introduction: Alcohol, commensality, identity transfor-mations and transcendence. In D. Gefou-Medianon (Ed.), Alcohol, culture andgender (pp. 1-33). London: Routledge.

George, W. H., & McAfee, M. P. (1987). The effects of gender and drinking experi-ence on alcohol expectancies about self and male versus female other. SocialBehavior and Personality, 15, 2, 133-144.

Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural conceptions ofmasculinity. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ginsburg, F. D. (1998). Contested lives: The abortion debate in an American com-munity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gladue, B. A., & Delaney, H. J. (1990). Gender differences in perception of attrac-tiveness of men and women in bars. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,16, 378-391.

Gutmann, M. C. (1996). The meanings of macho: Being a man in a Mexican city.Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Herszenhorn, D. (1999. April 4). Room with a viewpoint. New York Times Educa-tion Life, 4A, 20-21.

Ingraham, L. H. (1984). The boys in the barracks: Observations on American mili-tary life. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

Kimmel, M. (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York: The FreePress.

Levant, R. F., & Brooks, G. R. (1997). Men and sex: New psychological perspec-tives. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

LOIS A. WEST

390

Lyman, P. (1998). The fraternal bond as a joking relationship: A case study of therole of sexist jokes in male group bonding. In M. Kimmel & M. Messner (Eds.),Men’s lives (pp. 171-181). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cam-bridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Murdock, C. G. (1998). Domesticating drink: Women, men, and alcohol in America1870-1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Newman, I. M., Crawford, J. K., & Nellis, M. J. (1991). The role and function ofdrinking games in a university community. College Health, 39, 171-175.

Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of hazing: Fraternities, sororities, hazing and bingedrinking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Nuwer, H. (1990). Broken pledges and the deadly rite of hazing. Marietta, GA:Longstreet Press.

Pedersen, W. (1990). Drinking games adolescents play. British Journal of Addic-tions, 85, 1483-1490.

Perkins, H. W. (1992). Gender patterns in consequences of collegiate alcohol abuse:A 10-year study of trends in an undergraduate population. Journal of Studies onAlcohol, 53, 458-462.

Pexton, P. (1994, December 5). Fighting a double standard. Navy Times, 13-14. Postman, N., Nystrom, C., Strate, L., & Weingartner, C. (1987). Myths, men, and

beer: An analysis of beer commercials on broadcast television. Falls Church,Virginia: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Raphael, R. (1988). The men from the boys: Rites of passage in male America. Lin-coln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

Reskin, B. F. (2000). The proximate causes of employment discrimination. Contem-porary Sociology, 29, 319-328.

Roiphe, K. (1993). The morning after: Sex, fear and feminism on campus. Boston:Little and Brown.

Saltz, R. (1989). Recent college drinking studies: A background paper for the alco-hol and other drug abuse in higher education. Applied research meeting July27-28, 1989. Unpublished manuscript. Berkeley, California: PreventionResearch Center.

Saltz, R., & Elandt, D. (1986). College student drinking studies 1976-1985. Contem-porary Drug Problems, 13, 117-159.

Sanday, P. R. (1991). Fraternity gang rape. New York: New York University Press.Schreiber, L. (1993). Alcohol and campus sexual deviance: Students’ neutralizations

of responsibility. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington, DC: George Washington Uni-versity.

Sturdevant, S. P., & Stoltzfus, B. (1992). Let the good times roll: Prostitution andthe U.S. military in Asia. New York: New Press.

Sulkunen, P., Alasuutari, P., Natkin, R., & Kinnunen. M. (1997). The urban pub.Finland: STAKES.

Thompson, M. (2000). Aye, aye, ma’am. Time, 155, 12, 30-34.

391


Walker, K. (1998). I’m not friends the way she’s friends. Ideological and behavioralconstructions of masculinity in men’s friendships. In M. Kimmel & M. Messner(Eds.), Men’s lives (pp. 223-236).

Wechler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G., Moeykens, B., & Castillo, S. (1994).Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college: A nationalsurvey of students at 140 campuses. Journal of the American Medical Associa-tion, 272(21), 1672-1677.

West, L. A. (1989). Philippine feminist efforts to organize against sexual victimiza-tion. Response, 12(2), 110-114.

West, L. A. (1992, July 8). Letters to the editor: Drinking brought on Tailhook out-rage. San Francisco Examiner, A-14.

White, K. (1968). Tau delta phi song book. College Park, MD: University of Mary-land.

Wittman, F. D. (1989) Planning and programming server intervention initiatives forfraternities and sororities: Experiences at a large university. Journal of PrimaryPrevention, 9, 4, 247-269.

Zimmerman, J. (1995). Tailspin: Women at war in the wake of Tailhook. New York:Doubleday.

392

LOIS A. WEST

The (Un)Emotional Male: Physiological, Verbal, and Written

Correlates of Expressiveness

JOHN M. ROBERTSON CHI-WEI LIN

University Counseling Services Chung Yuan Christian UniversityKansas State University Chung-Li, Tao Yuan Hsien, Taiwan

JOYCE WOODFORD KIMBERLY K. DANOS

University Counseling Services Department of Counseling and Kansas State University Educational Psychology

Kansas State University

AND

MARK A. HURST

Independent PracticeOlympia, Washington

The purpose of this study was to explore possible associationsbetween two variables of the male experience: what men reportabout their emotions, and what they actually experience physio-logically. Men from traditionally male occupations (N = 69)were presented with three emotion-inducing stressors (i.e., avideo, a math test, and a cold pressor). Their responses to thestressors were evaluated using physiological, verbal, and struc-tured measures. They were also given a measure of gender-rolestress. Results indicated that all the men experienced physiolog-ical arousal from the emotion-inducing stimuli, and that thelevel of arousal was not associated with the degree of gender-role stress. Also, men who reported the highest levels of gender-role stress (often regarded as more traditionally masculine)were more expressive of emotions when asked to use a struc-tured exercise than when asked to talk about their responses.

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Arthur J. Rathbun, Cheryl Harper, Ann Johnson,and Linda L. Gaffney for their technical and editorial assistance; and of Wendy Grove, Zaneta Barte, andCheryl Harper in collecting the data.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to John M. Robertson, University CounselingServices, Lafene 238, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66502 or [email protected].

The Journal of Men’s Studies, Volume 9, Number 3, Spring 2001, pp. 393-412.©2001 by the Men’s Studies Press, LLC. All rights reserved.

393

Conversely, men who reported less gender-role stress weremore emotionally expressive when they talked about theirresponses than when they used a structured exercise.

Key Words: men’s emotions, physiological arousal, genderrole stress, emotional expressiveness, emotion-inducingstressors

In North American culture, it frequently is asserted that men find it difficult to talkabout their emotions. For more than 25 years, this topic has been the subject of boththeoretical exploration (David & Brannon, 1976; Friedman & Lerner, 1986; Gold-berg, 1976; Pleck, 1981) and social science research. Most scholarly observers inthis area have described men as having considerable difficulty in verbally expressingtheir emotions to others (e.g., Brooks & Gilbert, 1995; Sher, 1993; Wilcox & For-rest, 1992). Based on this theoretical work, clinicians have been encouraged to de-emphasize the focus on talking about feelings in therapy and to offer men moreopportunities to be active. Examples of such activities include workshops, consulta-tions, self-help reading, classes, or other behavioral approaches (Bernstein, 1995;Hurst, 1997; Kelly & Hall, 1992; Miller, 1995; Robertson, 1989; Shay, 1996; Wani-garatne & Barker, 1995).

These studies seem to suggest that most men are hypoemotional. Repeatedly, itis asserted that most men have great difficulty in identifying their own emotions, insending emotional messages, or in accurately interpreting the emotions of others.The term alexithymia has been used to describe this inability to adequately expressaffect (Levant, 1992). Studies that emphasize the hypoemotionality of men typicallycompare men with women and then report significant gender differences. To illus-trate, men have been reported to have lower levels of happiness, life satisfaction,depression, fear, and sadness than women (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1987; Scherer, Wall-bott, & Summerfield, 1986; Wood, Rhodes, & Whelan, 1989).

However, more recent work has questioned some of the empirical basis for thisperspective. For example, Heesacker and his colleagues have suggested that it maybe mostly a stereotype to suggest that men are hypoemotional (Heesacker, Wester,Vogel, Wentzel, Mejia-Millan, & Goodholm, 1999). Although the view that men arehypoemotional (and that women are hyperemotional) has a long history (cf., Parsons& Bales, 1955), Heesacker cited several studies that show very little affective differ-ence between men and women. Specifically, men and women have shown no signifi-cant differences in their abilities to send or receive emotional messages from others(Conner & Heesacker, 1999), in their expressions of anger (Burrowes & Halberstadt,1987), in their private experiences of emotion (LaFrance & Banaji, 1992), or in thefacial expressions and visual behavior that they use to respond to emotional ques-tions (Cherulink, 1979).

Other studies have found similar results. Eagly and Steffen (1986) found thatalthough typical women are judged to be more emotionally expressive than typicalmen, when subjects were told that men and women were in identical roles, subjects

ROBERTSON, LIN, WOODFORD, DANOS, AND HURST

394

reported no differences in their expectations of men and women. Similarly, in astudy that required men to report on their own emotions (fear, joy, sadness, andlove), results indicated that when men report less intense emotional experiences,they are more likely to hold stereotypical views about emotional differences betweenmen and women (Grossman & Wood, 1993). The Heesacker review concluded that“research on emotion fails to support the perception of vast affective differencesbetween men and women” (Heesacker et al., 1999, p. 483, 484). This conclusionechoes the findings of others who have reviewed the literature (Canary & Emmers-Sommers, 1997; LaFrance & Banaji, 1992).

Although these two strands of literature may seem somewhat incompatible, italso can be argued that they are complementary. Granted, many North Americanmen may have difficulty expressing their emotions verbally; this has been noted forseveral decades. However, it may also be true that men do not necessarily havefewer emotions or have any less capability than women of expressing them. It maybe that men are less verbally expressive of their emotions because they have beensocialized to say less, or because they have a limited capacity to express themselves,not because they have little emotional arousal in their lives.

To explore this possibility, it would be useful to look for within-group differ-ences among men, rather than to compare men with women. Two types of questionscan be asked. First, do all men experience significant emotional arousal to the eventsin their lives? Are there significant differences in levels of arousal among men? Ifso, can this be shown empirically? Second, are some men more verbally expressiveof their emotional arousal than other men? If so, what makes the difference? Do thethemes of traditional masculine socialization help us understand any within-groupdifferences on the emotional expressiveness of men?

In considering these questions, two clusters of studies seem helpful to review.The first group suggests that high levels of emotional expressiveness in men areunlikely because of the internal strain it creates. Pleck and his associates (1993)developed a set of statements illustrating the “masculine ideology” of North Ameri-can culture. Included were items involving respect from others, self-confidence,physical toughness, reluctance to talk about problems, avoidance of feminine-likebehavior, low interest in housework, and readiness for sexual activity. Otherattempts to describe central masculine socialization themes have included such con-structs as achievement/success/status; toughness/aggressiveness; dominance/control;analysis/rationality; and avoidance of emotionality/femininity/homosexuality (David& Brannon, 1976; O’Neil, 1981). Researchers have investigated the conflicts createdfor men by these expectations, using such models as “gender-role conflict” (O’Neil,Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986), “sex-role strain” (Pleck, 1981), and“gender-role stress” (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). A basic idea in this body of work isthat men have been socialized in ways that make the verbal expression of emotionsunlikely because of the “conflict,” “strain,” or “stress” that such expressions mightevoke.

The second group of relevant studies suggests that men are less emotionallyexpressive as adults because they have fewer opportunities to develop those skills.Cross-cultural studies have shown that the child-care role (requiring high levels ofemotional investment and expressiveness) are much less frequently held by men than

395

THE (UN)EMOTIONAL MALE

by women; Crano and Aronoff (1978) looked at 186 societies and found that youngboys through the age of five received much less emotional support from fathers thanfrom mothers. Similarly, personal and emotional care of the frail elderly is less fre-quently a responsibility taken by men (Dwyer & Seecomb, 1991); men are expectedto provide less emotionally involving services, such as household maintenance andrepairs or transportation to appointments. Given the differentiation of these roles bysex, men simply have fewer opportunities to develop and use skills of emotionalexpressiveness.

Based on these two ideas (that traditional masculine ideology makes the verbalexpression of emotions stressful, and that men simply have few opportunities todevelop the skills of emotional expression), it is plausible to suggest that the problemmay not be the inherent hypoemotionality of men; it may rather be that men havebeen socialized not to verbalize their feelings.

To empirically test this theory, two suppositions must be examined: that virtu-ally all men are significantly physiologically aroused by emotion-inducing events;and that men vary in how they wish to express this emotional arousal, based on (per-haps) masculine idealogy. To date, these links have not appeared in the empirical lit-erature. However, recent studies have examined physiological data in ways thatbegin to explore this possibility. In brief, this body of research hints that many menactually may be experiencing higher levels of emotional arousal than they are report-ing verbally. For example, Grossman and Wood (1993) found that when men andwomen were not given normative instructions about responding to emotion-inducingslides, men verbally reported less emotional intensity than women (a finding consis-tent with socialized expectations), but they also found that when the instructions nor-malized emotional responsiveness, no sex differences were found in physiologicalresponses to the slides. Further, there is evidence that men are highly reactive physi-ologically to stressful events. Gottman and Levenson (1988) reviewed a series ofstudies showing that men do indeed experience physiological arousal when pre-sented with emotion-inducing events (i.e., changes in blood pressure, basal skin con-ductance, heart rate, release of hormones, and corticosteroid excretion).

The purpose of this study was to explore any associations between two variablesof the male experience: what men actually experience physiologically when emo-tionally aroused, and how they report those experiences. To accomplish this, we pre-sented men with three emotion-inducing events and then compared what theyreported about the experience with measures of their actual physiological responses.We also were curious about the role of masculine gender-role issues in this equation.Based on the literature (Bernstein, 1995; Hurst, 1997; Kelly & Hall, 1992; Miller,1995; Robertson, 1989; Shay, 1996; Wanigaratne & Barker, 1995; Wilcox & For-rest, 1992), we hypothesized that men with more traditional gender-role expectationswould not have lower levels of emotional arousal, but instead would be more reluc-tant to express verbally their internal emotional arousal. At the same time weexpected that a more structured exercise would elicit more expressiveness from thesemen than would invitations to simply speak about their experiences.

Because we were interested primarily in within-group differences, no compari-son groups of women were used. That is, we were interested in examining the stereo-type that most men are hypoemotional—that they do not experience significant lev-

396


els of emotional responsiveness or that they do not express their emotions effec-tively. Further, we were interested in whether or not masculine socialization mightbe a variable that would help explain any within-group differences among men withregard to emotional expressiveness.

The importance of examining this question is illustrated by the variety ofintrapsychic, interpersonal, and physical health problems men experience (Cleary,1987; Courtenay, 2000; Meinecke, 1981). In particular, emotional inexpressivenesshas been associated with marital problems, alcohol abuse, workplace stress, reluc-tance to seek counseling, poor health habits, the use of violence, Type A behavior,loneliness, low use of social support networks, and sexual difficulties for men (Eisler& Blalock, 1991; Gordon & Meth, 1990; Pasick, Gordon, & Meth, 1990). If we canbegin to show that the problem is not a lack of emotional arousal or responsivenessamong men, but rather a lack of opportunity or a lack of social support for express-ing themselves, then these latter factors might be directly addressed.

One final comment concerns the problem of defining basic emotions. Althougha review of this definitional problem is beyond the scope of this study (e.g., Ekman& Davidson, 1994), it is appropriate to describe briefly the components of an emo-tion as conceptualized for the present work: (a) an emotion requires an antecedentevent (intrapsychic, interpersonal, or environmental) that stimulates physiologicalarousal; (b) the arousal functions to focus attention on life tasks that need to beaddressed and provides motivation to make appropriate adaptive responses (David-son, 1994; Frijda, 1994; Gray, 1994; Levenson, 1994; Robertson & Freeman, 1995).Put in real life terms, when a bear suddenly appears on a mountain pathway in frontof a man, physiological reactions occur (changes in heart rate, skin temperature,etc.). The purpose of this arousal is to focus attention on the problem and energizeappropriate adaptive responses. The emotion includes the arousal, the appraisal, andthe motivation to make an adaptive response. For this particular illustration, the emo-tion might be named fear or panic. Using this definition, most emotions can benamed with a single descriptive word, and these emotion words can be rated withregard to intensity (e.g., Averill, 1975).

METHOD

RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

Participants were recruited from several male-dominated occupations and were allemployed near a major university in the Midwest. Two themes consistent with tradi-tional masculine socialization formed the selection criteria: the men were directlyresponsible for the physical or emotional well-being of a fairly large number of peo-ple; and they were required to respond immediately and act as problem-solvers topersons in acute distress. Men theorized to have met these criteria included policeofficers, sheriff deputies, jailers, fire fighters, members of the clergy, and men withadministrative responsibilities that included significant safety concerns. Generally,they were recruited through the organizations in which they were employed (e.g.,announcements in police departments, fire stations, and so forth). For participating ina study of “Stress Management Factors,” the men were offered free admission to a


397

four-hour workshop on the management of stressful emotions at work.The 69 participants had a mean age of 35.71 (SD=11.81). The response rate (the

proportion of actual participants to those invited to participate) was relatively high(just over 80%); superior officers and supervisors strongly encouraged the men toparticipate. The participants had completed an average of 4.25 years of educationbeyond high school. They identified themselves ethnically by reporting that theirancestors came mostly from Europe (85%), Africa (4%), or Hispanic countries (4%).The rest (6%) reported mixed ancestry or left the question blank. They reported theircurrent relationship status as married (49%), single with no steady relationship(32%), divorced (10%), and steady but unmarried relationship (9%).

Because traditional counseling invites men to be emotionally expressive, themen were asked about their preferences or experiences with counseling. Most hadnever talked with a professional helper for personal concerns (56%), and only a fifth(21%) of the entire sample indicated that they would be more likely in the future toseek help from a professional than from family members, relatives, or friends. Yet,43% had sought help from a professional counselor or a member of the clergy, andhad attended an average of 5.93 sessions. This latter percentage is higher than weexpected, given the usual counseling utilization rates of men. Perhaps the higher lev-els of risk and demand in these occupations made them more likely to seek help.

INSTRUMENTS

Instruments were selected to measure the following variables: (a) physiologicalarousal during an emotion-inducing event; (b) verbal and structured emotionalexpressiveness immediately following the emotion-inducing event; and (c) the pres-ence of gender-role stress.

To measure psychophysiological responses to emotion-inducing events, partici-pants were attached to the Focused Technology F1000 Instrumentation System (Bio-Medical Instruments, 1994). A battery of responses was collected, including skintemperature and electrodermal response (EDR) data at 7.2 samples per second, elec-tromyographic (EMG) data at 10 samples per second, and heart rate with electrodeson the upper body. Responses were measured during three emotion-inducing events,involving visual/auditory experiencing (a nine-minute videotape), cognitive func-tioning (a one-minute mental arithmetic task), and sensory functioning (a one-minutecold pressor test).

Videotape Segment. Numerous studies have successfully induced emotionalresponses with the use of film/videotape stories. Reviews of these studies (Gerrards-Hesse, Spies, & Hesse, 1994; Martin, 1990) have noted that viewing videotapedscenes does indeed induce physiological arousal. For example, segments of themotion picture “The Champ” have been used to elicit sadness (Marston, Hart, Hile-man, & Faunce, 1984), and the movie “Run” has been used to induce anxiety (Isen& Gorgolione, 1983).

For the present study, segments of the movie “My Life” (Netter & Rubin, 1993)were selected because the story deals with themes many theorists have indicated aredifficult for traditionally socialized men to express (father-son relationships, sadness,


398

and death). The father-adult son relationship in the story is a subplot of the largerstory about the terminally ill adult son who wanted to preserve his life story onvideotape for his own newly born son. The father-adult son interactions in the moviewere edited together to form a video that lasted nine minutes and 40 seconds.

Immediately following presentation of the videotape segment, participants wereasked “What words would you use to describe your reaction to the video?” Answerswere recorded on audiotape and then transcribed. Graduate students were employedto count the number of emotion words used by participants and to indicate the emo-tionality rating for each word using the model developed by Averill (1975). Previousstudies have used the words of research participants to evaluate the presence of emo-tions (e.g., Greenwald, Cook, & Lang, 1989; Lang, 1984, 1985), drawn conclusionsbased on the counting of English words (Breland, 1996; Thorndike, 1921), and usedresponse time as a measure of emotionality (Fitzgibbons & Simons, 1992; Hess,Kappas, McHugo, Lanzetta, & Kleck, 1992; Lang, Greenwald, Bradley, & Hamm,1993).

Mental Arithmetic Task. Earlier studies have shown that mental arithmetic proce-dures can increase activity in muscle tension, skin temperature, heart rate, electroder-mal response, and systolic blood pressure (e.g., Anderson, 1989; Arena, 1984). Afterreviewing the protocols of several investigators (Carlson, Collins, Stewart, Porzelius,Nitz, & Lind, 1989; Donat & McCullough, 1983; Subotnik & Shapiro, 1984), a one-minute arithmetic task was devised for the present study: participants were given athree digit number on a 4x6 card and asked to count aloud backwards by incrementsof 13. They were instructed to work as rapidly as possible while the investigatorwrote down their responses.

Cold Pressor Test. Psychophysiological sensitivity has been found with the use ofthe cold pressor procedure (e.g., Reeves & Shapiro, 1983; Subotnik & Shapiro,1984). Participants in the present study were asked to immerse one hand in a three-gallon tank filled with crushed ice and water for as long as they could withstand thepain, up to a maximum of 60 seconds. Water was kept constant at a temperature ofless than .5 degrees Centigrade. Participants were informed that they could removetheir hand at any time the sensations became too painful.

Emotional Assessment Scale (EAS). After each administration of the three emotion-inducing events, participants were given a structured pencil and paper assessmentthat was generally completed in less than one minute. The EAS (Carlson et al., 1989)consists of 24 words that describe eight emotional states (anger, anxiety, disgust,fear, guilt, happiness, sadness, and surprise). The eight selected emotions were basedon the work of Izard and others (Ekman, 1972; Izard, 1977, 1991). Three descriptorsfor each emotion were chosen using the work of Nunnally (1981), who developed afactor-analytic list of words most often used for each emotion category.

To complete the exercise, participants used a visual analogue scale. Participantswere asked to measure the intensity of each emotional descriptor by drawing a slashon a 100-millimeter line. The line ranged from points labeled “Least Possible” (zero)to “Most Possible” (100 millimeters). The instrument has been used to measure


399

momentary and immediate changes in emotional states. The EAS was scored bymeasuring the number of millimeters from the left endpoint up to the slash mark.Scores for each emotion, therefore, ranged from 0-100.

Carlson et al. (1989) reported that reliability was measured using both inter-item(.70 to .91) and split-half (.94) procedures. Because the EAS is designed to measurean emotional state at a particular point in time, computing reliability over severaladministrations was not appropriate. Validity was examined by comparing several ofthe subscales with existing measures of emotions, such as the Profile of Mood States(McNair, Lorr, & Doppleman, 1981), the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, 1972),and the State form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Speilberger, Gorsuch, &Luschene, 1970). Results were supportive, with positive correlations found in theexpected directions for such subscales as sadness (.74), anxiety (.78), anger (.69),and happiness (-.36).

Semantic Atlas of Emotional Concepts. Intended to be a complete list of emotionalterms in the English language, this instrument was used to measure both the fre-quency and the intensity of the emotion words used by men in our study. Averill andhis colleagues (1975) first reviewed 18,000 psychological terms compiled by Allportand Odbert (1936), as well as three other emotion word lists. If two of five judgesagreed that a term had emotional connotations, Averill kept the term on the list. Atotal of 717 terms were thus retained. Further work using university undergraduatesas subjects eliminated non-emotional terms and reduced the list to 558 words.

For each word, an emotionality rating was developed. Several factors were com-bined (activation/energy, evaluation/pleasantness, importance/depth of experience,and degree of control). Estimates of reliability for these ratings were obtained byrandomly splitting the subject pool into halves. Correlations between the split-sam-ple scores were ranged from .87 to .98 for the four factors. An overall emotional rat-ing was calculated, based on a scale of -3 (less emotionality) to +3 (more emotional-ity). To illustrate, the term “furious” had an emotionality rating of +2.25, and theterm “listless” had a rating of -1.65.

For the present study, a word used by a research participant was called an emo-tion if it appeared in Averill’s atlas, and the word’s intensity was recorded usingAverill’s emotionality rating.

Masculine Gender-Role Stress (MGRS). Developed as a measure of male gender-role stress (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987), the MGRS consists of 40 items factor ana-lyzed into five subscales: Physical Inadequacy (not being competitive in sports orsexual rivalries); Emotional Inexpressiveness (difficulties in expressing feelings orresponding to emotions in others); Subordination to Women (in athletic or sports set-tings); Intellectual Inferiority (indecisiveness, inability to handle situations); and Per-formance Behavior (work and sexual adequacy). The underlying theory is that menwill experience stress if they believe they are not behaving as men should behave orif a situation forces them to act in ways others define as feminine.

Higher scores reflect comparatively higher levels of gender-role stress and havebeen correlated positively with stress in expressing emotions, higher levels of anxi-ety and anger, poorer health habits, and higher systolic blood pressure changes in a


400

cold pressor test (Eisler & Blalock, 1991; Eisler, Skidmore & Ward, 1988). Thescale has shown high internal consistency (alpha coefficients in .90s), and test-retestreliability over two weeks was .93. Construct validity has been supported by com-paring the MGRS with other traits theoretically linked with masculine stress, such asinexpressiveness, anger, state anxiety, stress reactions, and adverse health habits(Eisler et al., 1988; Saurer & Eisler, 1990).

PROTOCOL

Participants were scheduled for individual 90-minute sessions, with the entire dataset being collected during a four-week period to minimize the potential confound ofcontemporary events. They came to a university health center where the project wasexplained. The consent form was signed, and the men were instructed to thoroughlywash their arms up to the elbow. Sensors were attached to the forefinger of the non-dominant hand, the palm of the hand, the forearms, and clavicles. Participants werethen seated in a recliner chair, with a visual screen shielding the equipment, a videomonitor, and an audiotape recorder. They were connected to the F1000 system anddirected through the following sequence of events: a baseline rest period (10 min-utes); viewing the videotape stimulus (9 minutes); rest and recovery (five minutes);performing the arithmetic task (counting backwards by 13s for one minute); rest andrecovery (five minutes); completing the cold pressor task (placing hand in ice waterfor up to one minute); final rest and recovery (sitting quietly and relaxing for fiveminutes). They were then ushered into a separate room and given the MGRS.Finally, they were debriefed by a licensed psychologist who inquired about any dis-comfort the procedure might have induced.

RESULTS

PHYSIOLOGICAL AROUSAL

Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the physiological measures foreach event in the protocol. It is clear that each of the three stressors (videotape, mathtest, and cold pressor) induced measurable physiological responses. Skin tempera-ture was reduced, and significant changes were measured for EDR, EMG, and heartrate. The widest range of responses occurred on the EMG, with more moderatechanges occurring with skin temperature, EDR, and heart rate.

It should also be noted from Table 1 that the simple request to report on theirresponses to the stimuli also elicited measurable arousal. This held true for bothforms of expression (i.e., for both the open-ended verbal responses and the struc-tured exercise [EAS]). Every time the men were asked to describe their reactions toone of the stimuli, their bodies responded with measurable arousal.

These results were consistent throughout the sample. Men who scored high onthe MGRS (indicating higher levels of gender-role stress), for example, displayedphysiological arousal patterns virtually indistinguishable from men who scoredlower on the MGRS. A median split of MGRS scores divided the men into twogroups (high gender-role stress and low gender-role stress). There was no significant


401

difference between these two groups on any of the physiological measures for anyevent in the entire protocol, with p-values ranging from .371 to .830.

A primary finding, then, was that all men responded physiologically to the emo-tion-inducing stimuli, regardless of their scores on the gender-role stress measure.Further, it should be noted that there were no significant differences within the sam-ple by occupation.

VERBAL AND STRUCTURED EXPRESSIVENESS

Tables 2 and 3 report results regarding expressiveness. To measure verbal respon-siveness, participants were asked to talk about the stimulus they had just experienced(e.g., “What words would you use to describe your reactions to the video?”). Audio-taped responses were analyzed with regard to response time, total number of wordsused, number of emotion words used, and an emotionality rating of the emotionwords. In addition, after the men had completed their responses to all three stressors,the participants were asked how they generally handled stress in their lives. Again,audiotaped responses were analyzed, calculating both the response time and thenumber of words used in responding to the question. These six elements are reportedin Table 2.


402

Table 1Physiological Measures of Responsiveness to Emotion-Inducing Stimuli

Temperature EDR (sweat) EMG (muscle) Heart Rate

Event M SD M SD M SD M SD

Baseline Rest 92.8 3.9 4.6 4.8 8.0 4.1 69.2 9.9Video Stimulus 91.1 4.4** 6.2 5.2** 16.8 8.3** 68.3 9.2Verbal Response 90.1 4.7** 8.8 7.1** 20.2 10.3** 78.0 12.0**EAS—Video 89.9 4.7** 8.3 6.2** 30.2 8.3** 73.2 10.3**Rest Period 90.8 4.8** 5.8 5.2** 9.8 6.2* 67.4 12.1Math Stimulus 89.7 4.6** 9.1 6.9** 15.4 6.3** 78.5 12.8**EAS—Math 89.0 5.6** 8.5 6.1** 30.1 9.3** 73.5 11.0**Rest Period 90.4 5.1** 5.9 5.1** 8.2 3.9 68.5 10.2Cold Pressor 89.3 5.0** 6.9 5.7** 30.4 11.2** 74.0 9.6**EAS—Cold Pressor 88.4 5.0** 6.3 5.3** 29.8 9.3** 70.1 10.1Rest Period 89.2 5.8** 5.5 4.9** 8.7 5.9 66.0 10.4**

** p <.01 * p <.05

Note: Temperature is reported in degrees Fahrenheit. EDR (electrodermal response) is reported in microohms. EDR numbers express units of change in conductance, relative to an EDR reference value; highernumbers reflect greater arousal. EMG (electromyographic) units are micro volts per event; higher num-bers generally reflect greater arousal. Heart rate is reported in beats per minute. EAS refers to the Emo-tional Assessment Scale (Carlson, et al., 1989). Each data point is compared to the baseline rest event.

The men tended to use rather few emotion words when reporting their reactionsto the video. However, the emotion words that they did use were quite intense (M =+2.28, on a seven-point scale from -3 to +3, with higher numbers representing moreintense emotionality). Variability in verbosity was wide, as the average number oftotal words used (emotion words plus all other words) was 51.16, with a standarddeviation of 51.65. Individual differences in overall wordiness were quite prominent.The variability on the use of emotion words was much smaller.

Results on the structured measure of expressiveness (EAS) indicated that menwere quite willing to report emotional responses with the use of pencil and paper.Table 3 indicates that all eight of the EAS emotions were reported as present at somepoint during the protocol. Within a range of 1 to 100, the videotape (M = 22.8, SD =22.3) and the math test (M = 21.9, SD = 23.2) evoked more intense overall ratingsthan the cold pressor (M = 13.6, SD = 15.7). With regard to individual emotions, thehighest rankings across the three stressors were given to anxiety (M = 29.5, SD =25.0) and surprise (M = 25.1, SD = 24.2), and the lowest ratings were given to dis-gust (M = 13.9, SD = 18.4) and happiness (M = 13.4, SD = 16.4). These findings arenot surprising, given that none of the emotion-inducing events was designed toinduced happiness or disgust. The high standard deviations for all these ratings againsuggested wide individual variation.

For the videotape stimulus, the most intense ratings were for sadness (M = 33.1,SD = 19.0), anxiety (M = 26.0, SD = 24.5), and anger (M = 25.3, SD = 25.8). Themath test elicited reports of anxiety (M = 39.5, SD = 29.3) and surprise (M = 28.3,SD = 27.3). The cold pressor generated the most intense responses on the same twodimensions as the math test, though in the reverse order: surprise (M = 29.4, SD =25.4) and anxiety (M = 22.9, SD = 21.2).

It is noteworthy that the emotion with the highest rating in the EAS exercise wasanxiety, given the theoretical construct that traditional masculinity emphasizes suc-cess, independence, and a reluctance to acknowledge fears. It may suggest that when


403

Table 2Verbal Measures of Responsiveness to Emotion-Inducing Stimuli

Measure M SD

Response time in reacting to video stimulusa 6.0 4.5 Number of words used in reacting to video 51.2 51.7Number of emotion words used in responding to videob 3.1 2.7Emotionality rating of emotion words used for videoc 2.3 2.5Response time in reporting stressful reactionsa 4.3 2.5Number of words used in describing stressful reactions 109.8 86.1

Note: aResponse time was the number of seconds between the interviewer’s question and the participant’sanswer; faster responses times were interpreted as more expressive. bWords were accepted as emotionwords if they appeared in the atlas of English emotion words compiled by Averill (1975). cThe Averill(1975) atlas developed an emotionality rating based on a seven-point scale from -3 to +3, with highernumbers indicating stronger emotionality.

men are given a structured way of responding to emotional issues, they are willing torespond, even if it means acknowledging emotional states generally minimized bytraditional masculine socialization. Supportive of this idea was the finding that menscoring highest on the gender-role stress measure (upper half of the MGRS) actuallyreported greater emotional intensity on the structured exercise (EAS) than did men inthe lower half of the MGRS, t(67) = -2.27, p <.02. In this sample, then, men withhigher levels of gender-role stress were quite willing to identify their emotionalstates on paper in a structured exercise—even more willing to do so than men report-ing less gender-role stress.

It is apparent that our measures of verbal and structured expressiveness weretapping different dimensions. The correlation between verbal expressiveness andscores on the EAS was rather low (r = .06). The implication is that other variablesmay explain the difference. In the present study, masculine gender-role stress servedas the independent variable, revealing the preferred modes of emotional expressive-ness (structured or verbal) in men.

GENDER-ROLE STRESS

The MGRS score for this sample of men (M = 80.16, SD = 20.88) was similar toanother sample of adult men reported in the literature: M = 83.2, SD = 21.0(Watkins, Eisler, Carpenter, Schechtman, & Fisher, 1991). The mean age of bothgroups was about 35. No significant differences were found by comparing MGRSscores for the various occupational groups within the present sample.

The low overall correlation between verbal and structured expressiveness in the

404


Table 3Written Measures of Responsiveness to Emotion-Inducing Stimuli

Videotape Math Task Cold Pressor Average Score by Emotion

Emotion M SD M SD M SD M SD

Anger 25.3 25.8 19.6 24.7 12.5 17.9 19.1 22.8Anxiety 26.0 24.5 39.5 29.3 22.9 21.2 29.5 25.0Disgust 17.8 20.6 15.6 21.6 8.4 13.1 13.9 18.4Fear 19.0 20.7 20.0 22.0 10.4 14.9 16.5 19.2Guilt 22.7 23.6 24.3 24.9 9.8 12.9 18.9 20.5Happiness 20.6 23.9 11.2 13.8 8.4 11.4 13.4 16.4Sadness 33.1 19.0 17.0 21.6 6.9 9.3 19.0 16.6Surprise 17.6 19.9 28.3 27.3 29.4 25.4 25.1 24.2

Stimulus Totals 22.8 22.3 21.9 23.2 13.6 15.8 19.4 20.4

Note: Participants reported the intensity of each emotion by drawing a slash on a 100-millimeter line(range = 1 to 100). Higher numbers indicate greater self-reported intensity for each emotion (Carlson etal., 1989).

entire sample leaves open the possibility that masculinity themes may be related to apreference for either structured or verbal forms of expressiveness. To test this ques-tion, a t-test for paired samples was performed, using gender-role stress as an inde-pendent variable for verbal and structured expressiveness.

Verbal expressiveness scores were computed by transforming into z-scores thedifferent units of measurement (see Table 2) generated by the audiotaped responsesto the videotape. We combined the intensity of emotions rating with the responsetime and the proportion of overall words that related to emotion; the result was a sin-gle z-score measure of verbal expressiveness. Similarly, the structured exercisescores (EAS) were transformed to z-scores. The t-test for paired samples comparedthe value of verbal expressiveness of each participant with his overall EAS score,and yielded a paired mean difference for each man. Two groups were formed by amedian split of scores on the MGRS, indicating high and low gender-role stress.

Results of the two-tailed t-test comparisons were consistent with theoreticalexpectations (Table 4). In the high gender-role stress group, the mean z-score forstructured expressiveness (M = .3223) was higher than the mean score for verbalexpressiveness (M = -.1259). The paired difference (M = .4482) was significant,t(34) = 2.17, p <.05. The low gender-role stress group had higher verbal expressive-ness scores (M = .1335) than structured expressiveness scores (M = -.3525). Thepaired difference (M = .4860) was significant, t(32) = -2.00, p <.05. This patternindicates that high verbal expressiveness was associated with low gender-role stress,whereas high structured expressiveness was associated with high gender-role stress.It seems appropriate to suggest that gender-role stress may predict the preferredmode of emotional expressiveness. Men with more gender-role stress related toviews of traditional masculinity are more likely to be comfortable expressing them-selves in structured ways, and men with less masculine gender-role stress are likelyto be more comfortable expressing themselves verbally.

DISCUSSION

What accounts for the belief that men do not easily express themselves emotionally?Is it that many men experience very low levels of physiological arousal to emotionalstimuli? Is it primarily because men are socialized to say little about their emotions?Or is it some combination of both?

Two findings in the present study seem relevant to this question. The first is thatall men in our sample were physiologically aroused by emotional stimuli; arousalwas not absent among men in traditionally masculine occupations or for men whohold views of masculinity that lead to stress. The second finding is that regardless ofgender-role stress issues, men are aware of their emotional arousal and are willing toreport it; what varies are their preferences about the most comfortable format forexpressing those emotions. Men with higher levels of stress related to traditionalgender roles appear to prefer structured approaches, and men with less gender-rolestress appear to prefer verbal expressions.

The first finding that all the men in our sample were physiologically arousedmay not be especially surprising, as it is consistent with the summary findings ofGottman and Levenson (1988), who pointed to a series of studies showing high lev-


405

els of physiological arousal in men. This finding speaks directly to the questionposed at the outset of the present study. The explanation for the emotional inexpres-siveness of some men is not that they experience low physiological arousal andtherefore have little to report. Men do respond physiologically to emotional stimuli,and the arousal does not appear to be related to any predictive variable in our sample(gender-role stress, occupation, age, and so forth).

The second finding is consistent with the literature indicating that many menprefer exercises and structured tasks more than open-ended talk about their innerfeelings (Hurst, 1997; Robertson, 1989). It is also consistent with findings from stud-ies that show men still are far more likely in family settings to offer services such ashousehold maintenance, repairs, or transportation to appointments, and less likely tobe involved in family roles that require high levels of emotional investment (Dwyer& Seecomb, 1991).

Perhaps the best answer to the question that prompted this study is that both“nature” and “nurture” contribute to an understanding of men and emotions. Withregard to nature, we found that emotional inexpressiveness in men was not due to anabsence of emotional arousal. In fact, as Gottman and Levenson have argued (1988),the fact that men have very high levels of physical arousal to stress may actuallycontribute to less verbal expressiveness. They noted that while experiencing conflictwith their partners, many men report feeling flooded or overwhelmed and thereforeless able to be verbal. Physiological arousal may indeed be a factor contributing tolow levels of emotional expressiveness in men—not because the arousal levels arelow, but because they are comparatively high (Gottman & Levenson, 1988).

Regarding the nurture contribution, we found wide variability in the format pre-ferred by men to express the emotions that they do have. Some men preferred toexpress themselves in an activity, and others preferred words. These differences seemmore likely to be influenced by socialization. Given the differences between gender-role expectations in this culture, many men simply have fewer opportunities to developtheir skills of emotional expressiveness. It is plausible to argue that many of these dif-ferences among men are learned (Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Grossman & Wood, 1993).

406

Table 4Masculine Gender Role Stress as a Predictor of Verbal versus Written Expressiveness

Masculine Gender-Role Stress (MGRS) Verbal Written t p

High Masculine Stress -.1259 .3223 2.17 .018Low Masculine Stress .1335 -.3525 -2.00 .027

Note: Values are expressed as combined z-scores, transformed from measures ofverbal expressiveness (response time, number of emotion words, and emotionality ofwords) and from structured expressiveness (Emotional Assessment Scale, from Carl-son et al., 1989). High and low masculine groups were formed by a median split ofthe MGRS (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987).


It is tempting to speculate about implications for counseling that might stemfrom these results. For example, when working with male clients struggling withaffect, therapists may be able to increase their effectiveness by giving attention to theclient’s gender role perspectives, and exploring any stress reactions related to thoseexpectations. Many men may freeze at versions of the question, “How do you feel?”But those same men may cooperate willingly and effectively if given a structuredway of reporting their feelings. In the context of the present study, the task of identi-fying the intensity of their emotions on 100-millimeter lines was effective; other cre-ative ways may be equally as effective. This approach is certainly consistent withtheoretical expectations, considering the traditional male emphasis on problem-solv-ing, task-completion, and structured activities. Given that more traditionally definedmen find talk therapy difficult, if not ineffective, it follows that the use of writtenassessments, structured expressive modalities, and task direction may provide moresatisfying results to the client.

At the same time, it must be noted that men with lower levels of gender-rolestress actually prefer to express their emotions through words rather than a structuredexercise. Again, there are implications for therapists. Knowing something about thegender-role views of a particular male client may be useful in treatment.

Another implication of these findings is related to the concept of stress for men.The present study was described to the research participants as a study aboutresponses to stress; about 80% of the men who were invited actually participated.Participants often volunteered comments to the experimenters about how pleasedthey were to be able to participate in a study about how men respond to stress. Seek-ing to reduce stress is one of the more common presenting complaints of men com-ing to therapy. “Feeling stressed” covers a wide array of separate physical and emo-tional problems. When men do not know how to identify or recognize underlyingissues, most symptoms can be described as stress. Stress generally arises for menwhen they do not believe problem-solving options exist or when they are uncertainabout how to maximize healthy and productive responses that might be available.One approach to men, then, may be to focus on physical and emotional self-aware-ness and how these are indications of stress. When placed in this more sociallyacceptable category of stress, men may be more willing to consider behavior andattitude choices designed to reduce their stress.

This study underlines the need to explore the importance of gender-role issuesin thinking about the emotional components of specific presenting issues brought bymen to counseling—men with relationship concerns, men as parents, men with sex-ual concerns, male friendship development, male interactions at work, and so forth.Given that men who experience more stress related to traditional masculinity mayrespond more readily to treatment that includes exercises or tasks, therapists canapproach these issues with a wider array of treatment options. For these men, psy-chotherapy that emphasizes behavioral changes, activities, and exercises may bemore appealing.

Two potential limitations in this study must be noted. First, we selected workingmen from a narrow set of male-dominated occupations (e.g., fire fighters, police offi-cers, and safety officials). To what degree these findings generalize to men withother occupational interests or personality styles is unknown. Further, because we

407


were primarily interested in within-group differences among men, no women wereincluded in the sample. Comparative observations are therefore restricted. A secondlimitation is that the techniques used to induce stress (video, math test, and coldpressor) are not in themselves tasks that men perform daily. Although they wereeffective in meeting internal validity demands, they may not generalize to otherforms of stress which men encounter.

This study also raises questions for further reflection and study. Can the use ofbiofeedback techniques facilitate successful self-recognition of unexpressed emo-tionality in men? What motivates men to desire more effective verbal skills? The useof physiological measures certainly can assist in uncovering more information aboutthe emotional content of various presenting issues. It may be that physiologicalarousal patterns differ with regard to presenting issues. One way to test this would beto invite male research participants to report their emotional responses (both verballyand in written form) regarding a variety of presenting issues while measuring theirphysiological arousal.

These and other questions remain. Nonetheless, for therapists working with theemotional content of men in therapy, this study does suggest that virtually all menexperience physiological arousal as a response to emotional stimuli (there are nounemotional men), and that given the right format, men are willing to share thosefeelings.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. E., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psycho-logical Monographs, 47 (1, Whole No. 211).

Anderson, C. D. (1989). Expression of affect and physiological response in psycho-somatic patients. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 25(3), 143-149.

Arena, J. G. (1984). Inter- and intrasession reliability of psychophysiological post-stress adaptation periods. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 6(3), 247-260.

Averill, J. R. (1975). A semantic atlas of emotional concepts. Abstracted in Catalogof Selected Documents in Psychology, 5, 330. American Psychological Associa-tion and Johnson Associates: Greenwich, CT.

Beck, A. A. (1972). Depression: Causes and treatment. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.

Bernstein, J. S. (1995). “Real men” don’t talk: Attempting psychodynamic grouptherapy with inner-city boys. Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy,5(2), 83-106.

Bio-medical Instruments, Inc. (1994). Focused Technology F1000 InstrumentationSystem. Warren, MI: Focused Technology.

Breland, H. M. (1996). Word frequency and word difficulty: A comparison of countson four corpora. Psychological Science, 7(2), 96-99.

Brooks, G. R., & Gilbert, L. A. (1995). Men in families: Old constraints, new possi-bilities. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp.252-279). New York: Basic Books.

408


Burrowes, B. D., & Halberstadt, A. G. (1987). Self- and family-expressiveness stylesin the experience and expression of anger. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11,254-268.

Canary, D. J., & Emmers-Sommers, T. M. (1997). Sex and gender differences inpersonal relationships. New York: Guilford Press.

Carlson, C. R., Collins, F. L., Stewart, J. F., Porzelius, J., Nitz, J. A., & Lind, C. O.(1989). The assessment of emotional reactivity: A scale development and vali-dation study. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 11(4),313-324.

Cherulnik, P. D. (1979). Sex differences in the expression of emotion in a structuredsocial encounter. Sex Roles, 5, 413-424.

Conner, K., & Heesacker, M. (1999). Sex, gender, and emotions: Accuracy of thedyadic communication of emotions. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Crano, W. D., & Aronoff, J. (1978). A cross-cultural study of expressive and instru-mental role complementarity in the family. American Sociological Review, 43,463-471.

Cleary, P. D. (1987). Gender differences in stress related disorders. In R. C. Barnett,L. Biener, & G. K. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and stress (pp. 39-72). New York:Free Press.

Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Engendering health: A social constructionist examinationof men’s health beliefs and behaviors. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 1(1),4-15.

David, D. S., & Brannon, R. (1976). The forty-nine percent majority: The male sexrole. New York: Random House.

Davidson, R. J. (1994). Complexities in the search for emotion-specific physiology.In P. Eckman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion (pp. 237-242).New York: Oxford University Press.

Donat, D. C., & McCullough, J. P. (1983). Psychophysiological discriminants ofdepression at rest and in response to stress. Journal of Clinical Psychology,39(3), 315-320.

Dwyer, J. W., & Seecomb, K. (1991). Elder care as family labor. Journal of FamilyIssues, 12, 229-247.

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender stereotypes, occupational roles, andbeliefs about part-time employees. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10(3), 252-262,

Eckman, P. (1972). Facial expressions of emotion. In J. K. Cole (Ed.), NebraskaSymposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Eckman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (1994). The nature of emotion. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Eisler, R. M., & Blalock, J. A. (1991). Masculine gender role stress: Implications forthe assessment of men. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 45-60.

Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). MGRS: Scale development and componentfactors in the appraisal of stressful situations. Behavior Modification, 11, 123-136.

Eisler, R. M., Skidmore, J. R., & Ward, C. H. (1988). Masculine gender-role stress:Predictor of anger, anxiety, and health-risk behaviors. Journal of Personality


409

Assessment, 52(1), 133-141.Fitzgibbons, L., & Simons, R. F. (1992), Affective response to color-slide stimuli in

subjects with physical anhedonia: A three-systems analysis. Psychophysiology,29(6), 613-620.

Friedman, R. M., & Lerner, L. (1986). Toward a new psychology of men: Psychoan-alytic and social perspectives. New York: Guilford.

Frijda, N. H. (1994). Emotions are functional, most of the time. In P. Eckman & R.J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion (pp. 112-122). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Gerrards-Hesse, A., Spies, K., and Hesse, F. W. (1994). Experimental inductions ofemotional states and their effectiveness: A review. British Journal of Psychol-ogy, 85, 55-78.

Goldberg, H. (1976). The hazards of being male: Surviving the myth of masculineprivilege. New York: Signet.

Gordon, G., & Meth, R. L. (1990). Men as husbands. In R. L. Meth and R. S. Pasick(Eds.), Men in therapy (pp. 54-77). New York: Guilford.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1988). The social psychophysiology of mar-riage. In P. Noller and M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds), Perspectives in marital interac-tion (pp. 182-199). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Gray, J. A. (1994). Three fundamental emotion systems. In P. Eckman & R. J.Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion (pp. 243-246). New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Greenwald, M., Cook, E., & Lang P. J. (1989). Affective judgment and psychophysi-ological response: Dimensional covariation on the evaluation of pictorial stim-uli. Journal of Psychophysiology, 3, 51-64.

Grossman, M., & Wood, W. (1993). Sex differences in intensity of emotional experi-ence: A social role interpretation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,65(5), 1010-1022.

Heesacker, M., Wester, S. R., Vogel, D. L., Wentzel, J. F., Mejia-Millan, C. M., &Goodholm, Jr., C. R. (1999). Gender-based emotional stereotyping. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 46(4), 483-495.

Hess, U., Kappas, A., McHugo, G. J., Lanzetta, J. T., & Kleck, R. E. (1992). Thefacilitative effect of facial expression on the self-generation of emotion. Interna-tional Journal of Psychophysiology, 12, 251-265.

Hurst, M. A. (1997). The best fit in counseling men: Are there solutions to treatingmen as the problem? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ball State University,Muncie, Indiana.

Isen, A. M., & Gorgolione, J. M. (1983). Some specific effects of four affect-induc-tion procedures. Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 20-31.

Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum.Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York: Plenum.Kelly, K. & Hall A. (1992). Mental health counseling for men [Special issue]. Jour-

nal of Mental Health Counseling, 14(3).LaFrance, M., & Benaji, M. (1992). Toward a reconsideration of the gender-emotion

relationship. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology(Vol. 14, pp. 178-201). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

410


Lang, P. J. (1984). Cognition in emotion: Concept and action. In C. Izard, J. Kagan,& R. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotion, cognition and behavior (pp. 193-226). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Lang, P. G. (1985). The cognitive psychophysiology of emotion: Fear and anxiety.In A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 131-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., & Hamm, A. O. (1993). Looking atpictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology,30, 261-273.

Levant, R. F. (1992). A gender-aware divorce prevention program. Men’s StudiesReview, 9(2), 15-20.

Levenson, R. W. (1994). Human emotions: A functional view. In P. Eckman & R. J.Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion (pp. 123-126). New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Marston, A., Hart, J., Hileman, C., & Faunce, W. (1984). Toward the laboratorystudy of sadness and crying. American Journal of Psychology, 97, 127-131.

Martin, M. (1990). On the induction of mood. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 669-697.

McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1981). The profile of mood states.San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Meinecke, C. E. (1981). Socialized to die younger? Hypermasculinity and men’shealth. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, December, 241-245.

Miller, L. (1995). Tough guys: Psychotherapeutic strategies with law enforcementand emergency services personnel. Psychotherapy, 32(4), 592-600.

Netter, G. (Producer), & Rubin, B. J. (Director). (1993). My life. [Film]. (Availablefrom Columbia Tristar, 3400 Riverside Drive, Burbank, California, 91505-4627.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression: Evidence andtheory. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259-282.

Nunnally, J. (1981). The affect inventory. Unpublished manuscript. Nashville, TN:Vanderbilt University.

O’Neil, J. M. (1981). Patterns of gender role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear offemininity in men’s lives. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 203-210.

O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1986).Gender-role conflict scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335-350.

Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process.New York: Free Press.

Pasick, R. S., Gordon, S., & Meth, R. L. (1990). Helping men understand them-selves. In R. L. Meth and R. S. Pasick, Men in therapy (pp. 152-180). NewYork: Guilford.

Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1993). Masculinity ideology and its cor-

relates. In S. Oskamp and M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender and social psychology(pp. 85-110). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Reeves, J. L., & Shapiro, D. (1983). Heart-rate reactivity to cold pressor stress fol-lowing biofeedback training. Biofeedback and Self-regulation, 8(1), 87-99.


411

Robertson, J. M. (1989). Men who avoid counseling: Identifying personality corre-lates and preferences for assistance alternatives. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Robertson, J. M., & Freeman, R. (1995). Men and emotions: Developing masculine-congruent views of affective expressiveness. Journal of College Student Devel-opment, 36(6), 606-607.

Saurer, M. K., & Eisler, R. M. (1990). The role of masculine gender role stress inexpressivity and social support network factors. Sex Roles, 23(5-6), 261-171.

Scher, M. (1993). Men and boys, myths and mythic proportions: A rejoinder toKelly and Hall. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 15, 290-297.

Scherer, K. R., Wallbott, H. G., & Summerfield, A. B. (1986). Experiencing emo-tion: A cross-cultural study. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Shay, J. J. (1996). “Okay, I’m here, but I’m not talking:” Psychotherapy with thereluctant male. Psychotherapy 33(3), 503-513.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. (1970). The State-Trait AnxietyInventory Manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Subotnik K. L., Shapiro, D. (1984). Heart rate biofeedback and cold pressor pain:Effects of expectancy. Biofeedback and Self-regulation, 9(1), 55-75.

Thorndike, E. L. (1921). The teacher’s word book. New York: Teachers College,Columbia University.

Wanigaratne, S., & Barker, C. (1995). Clients’ preferences for styles of therapy.British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34(2), 215-222.

Watkins, P. L., Eisler, R. M., Carpenter, L., Schechtman, K. B., & Fisher, E. B.(1991). Psychosocial and physiological correlates of male gender role stressamong employed adults. Behavioral Medicine, 17(2), 86-90.

Wilcox, D. W., & Forrest, L. (1992). The problems of men and counseling: Genderbias or gender truth? Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14(3), 291-304.

Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive well-being: A consideration of emotional style and marital status. Psychological Bul-letin, 106, 249-264.

412


An Exploration of Perceptions of Masculinityamong Gay Men Living with HIV

PERRY N. HALKITIS

Department of Applied PsychologyNew York University

An ethnographic investigation was undertaken to explore thesocial construct of masculinity. Fifteen HIV seropositive gaymen in New York City were interviewed via electronic mediumin order to characterize behaviors and associated meaningsattached to the conception of masculinity as physicality. Struc-tured interviews were utilized to ascertain these data in orderto illustrate how some men define masculinity in terms of theirphysical appearance and sexual adventurism. The data indi-cate that men who possess this ideological stance regardingmasculinity seek to remain healthy, appear physically strong,and attract sexual partners. This hegemonic standard of mas-culinity is a result of both the men’s HIV infection as well astheir perceptions of gay community norms. Emphasis on phys-ical strength and sexual prowess as means of defining mas-culinity has become a standard in the last two decades forsome seropositive gay men.

Key Words: masculinity, gay, homosexual, HIV, AIDS

Social scientists concur that cultural beliefs about gender behavior are socially con-structed and self-perpetuating (Wood, 1997). Specifically, psychologists have identi-fied social learning processes by which this transmission of beliefs may occur, aswell as the mechanisms which serve to enforce gender-appropriate behavior (Ban-

413

The author would like to thank David Bimbi for his intelligent insights regarding this project, Mala Hoff-man and Cameron MacLean for their editorial assistance, and the 15 men who spoke so frankly abouttheir lives.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Perry N. Halkitis, Department of Applied Psychol-ogy, New York University, 239 Greene Street, East 537G, New York, NY 10003 or [email protected].


dura & Walters, 1963; Lynn, 1969; Mischel, 1973). For gay men who struggle withthe conceptions of masculinity as they are raised in heterosexual environments, thistype of learning is undertaken through modeling of norms once they are immersed intheir own gay communities. As young gay men renounce their childhood to attain amasculine status (Gilman, 1985; Gilmore, 1990), many enter into the gay commu-nity, which functions to reinforce masculine socialization dynamics (Clark, 1997;Connell, 1995). Consequently, they develop conceptions of masculinity separatefrom the heterosexual world. The result, for many, is a gender negotiation processthat includes the construction of masculinities, including the dominant form of mas-culinity as physicality evidenced in most gay communities in the United Sates(Kurtz, 1999). Due to a variety of influences, the most recent of which is the devas-tation of HIV/AIDS, the gay community itself has taken on the role of parent andrewards conceptions of masculinity based on norms that involve an emphasis on thephysical (Halkitis, 1999a).

In part, this onset of the gay masculine man as the physical ideal was in reactionto a construction of masculinity that failed to encompass same-sex desires, associat-ing those feelings with femininity and in opposition to masculinity (Carrigan, Con-nell, & Lee, 1987; Klein, 1993). Connell (1995) traces the struggle for the attainmentof masculinity for gay men to the 1950s where many were raised in a society wherethe concept of the masculine male was reserved for heterosexual men. Thus, the gayman was labeled by society as effeminate or deviant because Western society’s rulesof masculinity and homophobic attitudes (Connell, 1992; Lehne, 1976) could notaccount for same-sex attraction. Such rules designated the appropriate behaviors andcharacteristics for a male and masculine identity (Lehne, 1976). Since that time andparticularly in the 1970s, the emergence of the physically masculine male gainedmomentum (Dowsett, 1993; Gough, 1989; Pronger, 1990; Signorile, 1997). In thisperiod right before the onset of AIDS, these seeds of masculinity gave root acrossgay urban centers of the United States, where perceptions of masculinity becameassociated with an ideal physical existence and on toughness (Harris, 1997; Plum-mer, 1999). This one permutation of psychological construct of masculinity becamesynonymous with physiological and the biological existence (Gough, 1989). In thewake of the liberation of the 1970s, many gay men began to reinvent themselves inan image of their own making, that of a physically masculine man.

The AIDS epidemic functioned as a further catalyst to this movement of mas-culinity as physicality (Halkitis, 1999a). At first, the emphasis on physicality amonggay men in large urban centers like New York City and San Francisco was in reac-tion to the health of men infected with the virus who experienced weight loss, mus-cular wasting and deterioration, and eventual death (Shilts, 1987). Today, whilethose phenomena exist, they are ameliorated by treatment advances, but also compli-cated by debilitating physical side effects associated with antiretroviral therapy(Halkitis & Kirton, 1999; Kaplan et al., 1995; Rodriguez-Rosado, Garcia-Samaniego, & Soriano, 1998; Snijders et al., 1998). Steroid replacement therapy as amedical intervention for controlling AIDS-related wasting (Grinspoon et al., 1998;Nemecheck, Stolifer, & Sackuvich, 1998; Rabkin, Wagner, & Rabkin, 1999), andresistance training to develop strength and endurance (Roubenoff, McDermott,Wood, & Suir, 1998) have emerged. These health behaviors have become intimately

414

PERRY N. HALKITIS

tied with notions of physicality, virility, and ideologically with masculinity (Signo-rile, 1997). It is in this milieu that gay men have perpetuated this subculture that soclearly associates masculinity with physicality, strength, virility, and sexual prowess.Thus, to understand this manifestation of masculinity as physicality for gay men, it isessential to orient oneself to both the sociological origins of this phenomenon as wellas to consider the impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on this construction of mas-culinity (Halkitis, 1999a).

The purpose of our investigation was to explore the physical conception of mas-culinity as defined by gay men. Specifically, we conducted this ethnographic investi-gation to understand how the physical definition of masculinity manifests itselfamong HIV seropositive men, whose self-concept may be undermined by HIV infec-tion. In doing so, we sought to characterize the behaviors and meanings these menattach to their understanding of this social construction.

METHODS

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURES

To consider the behaviors and meanings associated with physical notions of mas-culinity among seropositive men, we conducted structured interviews with HIVseropositive men residing in New York City. The men were identified through use ofthe Internet in the third quarter of 1998, using passive recruitment (postings on list-serve accounts) as well as active methodologies by engaging conversations of partic-ipants in “chat rooms.” Participants were screened on two criteria: a self-reportedHIV positive serostatus test result and a self-report of regular (three or more days perweek) exercise at a physical fitness center. Those exercising regularly were inten-tionally selected to examine the interconnections between masculinity and physicalexistence put forth above. Men who were willing to participate were scheduled foran interview.

All communications between the researcher and the participants were conductedvia electronic medium (e-mail). Participants were sent the interview via electronicmedium and were asked to return the responses to the researcher within ten days.Upon obtaining the responses, answers were reviewed for clarity. When answerswere ambiguous or unclear, follow-up questions were posed to the participantsregarding their responses. Communications continued until such point that partici-pant responses were clarified. No identifying information was obtained to assure theconfidentiality of the individuals; all participants are identified through the use ofpseudonyms.

Within a two-month period, 22 participants indicated a willingness to participatein the investigation. Of these 22, ten responded to a listserve posting and twelvewere recruited via chat room conversations. Twenty-one met screening eligibility. Atthe conclusion of the date collection period, 15 electronic interviews had been con-ducted. While the sample of 15 men was sufficient to obtain an initial understandingof the constructs, the sample is limited in terms of making greater generalizations tothe population of HIV+ gay men.

415

AN EXPLORATION OF PERCEPTIONS OF MASCULINITY

MEASURES

A set of ten questions guided the discussion; probes were used for each to obtain in-depth data regarding the constructs that were assessed. Questions centered on defini-tions of masculinity, the impact of HIV on definitions of masculinity, and the inter-play of physical existence and masculinity among HIV seropositive men.Participants were asked questions about steroid use, exercise, sexual behaviors,descriptions of masculine men and masculine behavior, as well as sexual partnerpreferences in the form of structured question interviews. Questions included the fol-lowing: “How do you define masculinity;” “Give an example of a behavior whichyou would consider masculine;” “To what extent is masculinity related to physicalappearance;” “How has being HIV seropositive affected your masculinity?”

The data were coded as per techniques outlined by Patton (1990) by the authorand one research associate along the structure of the questions, such that each ques-tion was analyzed separately. Each question was coded for conceptions of masculin-ity that included the physical definition as well as definitions that did not incorporatethis ideological stance. We developed and used codes that indicated direct defini-tions provided by the participants regarding masculinity as physical self, and sepa-rately behaviors that demonstrated that conception. Thus, a two-level codebookemerged: (1) definitions of masculinity and (2) behaviors associated with masculin-ity. Within each of the two main levels of coding, subdomains emerged regardingphysical appearance and sexual prowess. And within each of those subdomains, wecoded responses for specific concepts regarding appearance and sexual prowess.After the codebook was developed, each set of responses was coded independentlyby the two researchers; an interrater agreement of 89.6% was reached for these qual-itative data.

In addition, participants were asked demographic questions through a briefquestionnaire that included age, year in which they first tested positive for HIV, bio-logical indicators of their health (CD4 and serum viral load levels), HIV antiretrovi-ral medication regimens, and sexual activity in the three months prior to the inter-view. These data were analyzed via descriptive computations.

RESULTS

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

The sample consisted of 15 men ranging in age from 29 to 56, with a mean age of 36years and mean of eight years that they had been living with a seropositive testresult. The men reported a mean CD4 (t-cell) count of 625; of the ten men indicatingviral load testing, four reported a negligible load, five reported a load of less than2000 copies/ml of blood, and one a load over 20,000. Approximately 77% of theparticipants were currently taking medications to treat HIV. In terms of relation-ships, 38% identified a main partner, although only one participant who was in arelationship indicated sex only with that partner. When asked about the number ofsexual partners, the participants’ answers ranged from 1 to 81, with an average ofapproximately 25 men in the three months prior to the assessment.

416

PERRY N. HALKITIS

CONCEPTIONS OF MASCULINITY

In both their direct responses and descriptions of behaviors, the majority of the par-ticipants clearly indicated their association of masculinity with physical appearanceand sexual adventurism. The associations were most direct when the participantsspoke of the idealized masculine male, when they described their sexual partners,and when they indicated their own routines and behaviors. One participant summa-rized these ideas as follows:

I do a significant amount to make myself more masculine looking.My workout, diet, and grooming are all pointed toward maintain-ing attractiveness and sexual opportunity.

Occasionally, although with no consistent pattern, the data revealed alternative defi-nitions of masculinity including “honesty,” “standing up for one’s beliefs,” and“integrity.” Statements in this regard were made clearly by the participants, althoughnone of their own behaviors or those of their idealized masculine man illustratedthese other definitions of masculinity. Overwhelmingly, the data revealed ideologiesreflected in the words of one participant, Paul, a 40-year-old HIV positive man, whosuggested: “Society makes masculinity and physical appearance go hand in hand.”

BODY IMAGE AND PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

Almost all of the participants described the emphasis that they placed on their physi-cal appearances. The statements reflected the importance that the men placed on“looking good” and “feeling strong,” and also on how these elements interactedwith their sense of masculinity:

By taking care of my body, my masculinity is affected in a posi-tive way.

Physical appearance does define masculinity on the outer shell.

Masculinity celebrates male form and virility.

To me a masculine guy has a big body. He doesn’t have to have abig cock, but a big frame, muscular and strong.

For some, the emphasis on physical appearance was related to the impressionsthat they manifested when they were seen in social situations. A few of the partici-pants expressed an ongoing concern that they be perceived as masculine by potentialsexual partners because such a perception would increase one’s probability of meet-ing that sexual partner. This notion was related to what was revered by the gay com-munity and what was sanctioned as appropriate masculine appearance. Tom, a 46-year-old man who has been HIV positive for eleven years, summarized this reality:


417

Initial perceptions of masculinity are strongly tied to physicalappearance. Well-built men usually give an initial feeling of mas-culinity at first sight. Since I like this perception, since it matters alot to me to be masculine, I work out and watch my diet.

Similarly, Darcy, 32 years old, acknowledged:

The world likes hot bodies. And gay men do especially. If youhave a hot body that means you are strong, you’re a man. That’swhat’s expected of you so that’s what you do.

Some of the men verbalized the social pressures within the gay community toconform to this hegemonic standard of masculinity. This ideal was related to theappearance of toughness associated with masculinity and viewed as essential to theappearance of a gay man. Philip, a 38-year-old, actively involved in the leather sceneand a recent contestant at International Male Leather Contest, unconditionally sup-ported this concept of masculinity, suggesting that it is the core of what he is andwhat he desires:

I am a man and want to be with men. Men are strong, muscular,and tough. They roll around with each other. They have man sex,masculine sex, the way two men are supposed to be with eachother.

Similarly, in describing this sanctioned ideology of masculinity by the gay commu-nity, Mitchell, a 37-year-old man who has been HIV positive since 1986, suggestedthe following:

Of course, you are told what to look like. When I first came out, Ihad long hair and didn’t really work out. One trip to the Eagle [abar in New York City] and I knew that had to change. I cut myhair real short and haven’t missed the gym for more than threedays in a row in years.

As noted earlier, several of the participants clearly outlined the steps that theytake to ensure the manifestation of their masculine as physical selves, including aregimented exercise schedule and the use of nutritional supplements to enhance mus-cularity and growth. However, some of the men did not view the undertaking of suchactivities as directed solely toward their masculinity. Statements about bodyenhancement efforts often were nested and intertwined with what the participantsbelieved to be essential elements of good health care. While some of the men sug-gested that resistance exercise and the use of nutrition supplements do serve the pur-pose of achieving the idealized masculine body, they also viewed these behaviors asprerequisites to the overall physical and mental health of HIV positive gay men: “Iwork out and bicycle to keep my body feeling healthy first and then looking good.”Similarly, another participant commented as follows:

418

PERRY N. HALKITIS

Some HIV positive men tend to overcompensate on the physicalaspects. Personally, I use a collection of weight-training enhance-ments such as creatin, androstene, and HMB for the personalchoice to build muscle, not necessarily for my HIV. As a sec-ondary consideration, by keeping my body as healthy as possible, Ican help stave off infections, and maintain my t-cells and low viralload naturally.

Others were more direct in their commentary about the bodywork that they do toenhance their masculinity:

Yes, I go to the gym five times a week and I know that probablythat’s a good thing for my health. But really, why I really go is tolook butch and pumped. You know I also do a testosterone shotevery two weeks; it just makes my pecs bigger.

My boyfriend and I work out together like almost every day.Sometimes I wonder if it’s worth it; I mean we look buff and thenyou go to the bars and there’s all this lard. So I guess I work outfor my health, but I think it’s more to look hot.

However, these body-enhancing behaviors were not always presented in a glam-orized or idealized state. A few of the participants indicated their disdain of behavingin this manner, as suggested by one 28-year-old who said the following:

Idiots like me go to the gym five times a week because we buyinto this conception of masculinity because we believe it andincorporate it into defining ourselves.

Central to the discussion of physical appearance was the use of body-enhancingsubstances, such as nutritional substances and anabolic-androgenic steroids. Some ofthe participants indicated that use of these substances helped them to achieve theirdesired masculine appearance. Reflecting on this reality, several respondents in thisstudy discussed the reasons behind their use of such substances. Albert, a 29-year-old HIV positive limousine driver, stated:

I don’t think that overcompensation of masculinity through the useof substances such as testosterone, steroids, etc. is one that isexclusive to HIV positive men. I think this is something thataffects a large portion of the gay male population regardless ofHIV status.

For many of the participants, use of substances such as testosterone was described asa treatment for the effects of HIV infection, including loss of muscle mass anddecreased libido. Among the 15 men, the use of body-enhancing substances such asnutritional supplements and testosterone were seen as a necessity to counteract the

419


ravages of the HIV virus rather than a step toward a fulfillment of what they per-ceive to be masculine. Similarly, a few of the participants also indicated the use ofViagra to counteract the penile dysfunction associated with their medication regi-mens and HIV. In this regard the following comments were made:

HIV causes low testosterone levels and that can make a man feellethargic; meds can make getting an erection a challenging event.Viagra alleviates that.

I see testosterone as maintenance of normal function in the face ofwhat appear to be side effects of the HIV medications I’m taking.

Others were more direct in their comments about steroid use for both aesthetic andmedicinal purposes. The use of the treatment to achieve both purposes is reflected inthis comment:

Testosterone and Viagra and stuff like that are related to masculin-ity. If a man can’t perform, especially one that wants to but physi-cally can’t, it’s a huge damper on one’s masculinity.

The notion that HIV may be the cause of this emphasis on physicality is an ideawith which every participant agreed. Several, in fact, suggested that they closelymonitor their health, the byproduct of which is a life oriented toward the physical,and in turn physical appearance. Reflecting upon this idea that HIV is the cause ofthis overemphasis on masculinity as physicality, Tony, 29 years old, summarizedthese ideas as follows:

Some of the side effects of HIV can lessen the physical appearancewhich seems to be a big part of a masculine image, which could bethreatening to you if you felt like it made you look less than mas-culine.

SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

For many of the participants, sexual behavior, and more specifically sexual adven-turism, were intimately tied to the constructs of masculinity as physicality. However,comments regarding sexual behavior were made less frequently than those com-ments about physical appearance and masculinity. Comments regarding sex wereoften associated with both the frequency of the sexual behaviors as well as theadventurism associated with sexual encounters: “I try to have sex as much as possi-ble, with as many men as possible, and as anonymously as possible.”

For a few of the participants, the need for frequent and adventurous sex washeightened by their seropositive status. This impact of serostatus on sexual behaviorwas related by three of the men as an affirmation of their attractiveness, and, ineffect, their masculinity. In this regard, Philip, 28 years old, noted:

PERRY N. HALKITIS

420

Sex is so important to me, maybe more important than before,when I was negative. By being with men, I feel desired, I feelwanted. When a man wants me it means that all my efforts to lookhot, to have a great body have paid off. Yeah, that makes me feelmore sure of my masculinity.

A few of the participants suggested the AIDS epidemic has forced gay men, col-lectively, to reexamine their sexuality. One of the participants suggested that “sexaffirms strong physical needs as well as social needs,” as he attempts to form socialnetworks with his peers. He and others suggested that, in the age of AIDS, the con-dom may have served to prevent the spread of the epidemic, but also served as anemotional barrier, preventing the social needs from being fulfilled. About half themen revealed their dislike of condom use and spoke of intentional anal sexual inter-course without condoms (i.e., barebacking) with other HIV positive men as a meansof overcoming this emotional barrier associated with sex. Several men suggested thatsex was an affirmation of life, and by barebacking they could “share their manhoodwith others.” To this point, one of the participants noted:

An HIV positive man is able to perform in the way a man is pre-scribed to perform, to overcome the impact of the virus and proveto oneself that one is still strong, sexual, virile, and masculine.

In this view, several men associated the attainment of the physical ideal with adesire to achieve sexual prowess as a reaffirmation or demonstration of their mas-culinity. One of the participants described the role of the masculine man as the“hunter-gatherer who seeks his conquest in other men; the more he succeeds, themore he is able to prove his manhood, his desirability, his masculinity.” Reflectingupon the importance and meaning of sex as an affirmation of his masculinity in lightof his HIV status, Peter, a 36-year-old who has been HIV positive for five years,commented:

HIV positive men take advantage of sexual opportunities morethan HIV negative men, perhaps because they feel due to their sta-tus they may get less opportunities in total. For example, in a baryou might strike up a conversation, which seems to be headed tothe bedroom. But it quickly dissipates when your positive status isrevealed. When your partner is willing, you move fast.

While comments about sexual behavior and masculinity were limited, the asso-ciation between men’s behaviors and their conception of their masculinity was atleast partially suggested by their comments. More specifically, the associationbetween sex and masculinity appeared to be somewhat indirect and driven primarilyby the emphasis that HIV positive gay men place on their physical appearance. Thisnotion is mostly clearly reflected in the answer of one participant who said:


421

Do men overcompensate for their masculinity through steroids andsex? Are you kidding? Of course, they do. Free legal steroids?Sure I want to look good. Barebacking parties? Where do I signup? I’m sure it has everything to do with masculinity and vitality.

DISCUSSION

Certainly, based solely on the words of these 15 gay HIV seropositive men, an argu-ment can be made that for some, masculinity is defined by physical appearance, thusgiving further impetus to the “buff agenda” (Halkitis, 1999a; 1999b; Signorile,1997). This perception is supported by the comments made by the participants in thisinvestigation and is demonstrated both by the behaviors and attitudes that this subsetof HIV positive men associate within this social construction.

The purposive sample used for this investigation was chosen to help illustratethe hegemonic conception of masculinity and the extent to which this socially domi-nant sexuality requires conformation to an abstract model in order to be attractiveand also to be attracted to others who possess it (Gough, 1989). Clark (1997) arguesthat the gay male ghetto emphasizes these values, perhaps at the expense of prevent-ing gay men from learning the “important lessons of life.” While this is one of manypermutations of masculinity (Plummer, 1999), the intent of this investigation was toexplore this social construction more fully among men who possess this ideologicalorientation toward masculinity. Our data help to indicate, in a concrete way, thebehaviors and beliefs of these men as well as the emphasis they place on strongphysical appearance and bodies. The importance attributed to this reality is under-scored by a desire to remain healthy and combat the HIV virus, but more importantlyto give the impression of virility and health to others with whom they come in con-tact. It was suggested that such an appearance is expected within the gay communityand results in a greater acceptance by sexual partners.

A majority of the men in our investigation endorsed the importance of a strongphysical appearance as means of reflecting toughness, strength, power, and health.Our data suggested that buff appearances are achieved through physical exercise andthe use of body enhancing substances. This look is characteristic of the masculinemale in the gay community and a requirement if one is to attract sexual partners andsucceed in the courting ritual of the gay community. While some of the participantsdescribed this appearance as a natural byproduct of behaviors that they undertook tomaintain their overall health in light of HIV infection, others were more direct insuggesting that such appearances were mandated by the social circles in which theyinteracted and thus this was the impetus for undertaking these body enhancingbehaviors. While this conception of masculinity was described by men with whomwe spoke at the end of the twentieth century, this social construction has earlier his-torical roots (Gough, 1989; Harris, 1997). Further, it has also been suggested thatthis conception of masculinity is intimately tied to the experience of the male body(Flannigan Saint-Aubin, 1994).

In addition, our participants indicated the use of anabolic-androgenic steroids asa means of enhancing physical appearance. While some used these substances tocounteract the effects of HIV, others also perceived it as a “manhood supplement”

422

PERRY N. HALKITIS

(Sullivan, 2000). This phenomenon has been noted elsewhere (Beel, 1998; Signorile,1997). In one recent study of recreational drug use among men in New York City(Halkitis & Parsons, 2000), the data indicated that 17% of seropositive men fre-quenting bars, dance clubs, and commercial sex environments reported usingsteroids to enhance physical appearance. This use of steroids may possibly be relatedto gay men’s greater body dissatisfaction (Beren, Hayden, Wilfey, & Grilo, 1996;Schneider, O’Leary, & Jenkins, 1995). Signorile (1997) relates body dissatisfactionamong gay men to the development of a rigid set of standards of physical beautywithin the community associating physical perfection with sexual and social desir-ability and masculinity.

In recent years, this hegemonic standard of masculinity has also becomeincreasingly associated with other physical attributes that seek to enhance the “butchappearance.” In particular, tattoos and body piercings are not uncommon among gaymen who seek this standard of masculinity. These are often complemented by “all-year” tans and darkened hair. One participant in this investigation spoke of his physi-cal preparation at the gym, tanning saloon, and in his bathroom dying his hair beforean evening at the bathhouse: his “twelve steps to beauty” (Halkitis, 1999a).

Finally, the emphasis on masculinity as physicality is also manifested in the sex-ual behaviors demonstrated by our participants. Sexual adventurism and frequentsexual contacts were suggested as mechanisms by which one could affirm masculin-ity and ultimately one’s desirability and virility, even while living with HIV infec-tion. For some of the participants, the need for unprotected sex was a means ofasserting their masculinity and also as mechanism by which they could achieve asocial and emotional connection with other seropositive men. In this regard, Clark(1992) argues that sexuality for gay men is ultimately about the relationality thatyields intimacy and communion. For some of the participants, this affirmation of lifewas associated with bareback sex, intentional unprotected anal intercourse. Whilebarebacking has not been associated directly with perceptions of masculinity, severalsources indicated that this type of sexual behavior is increasingly common amonggay men, especially those of positive serostatus (Halkitis & Parsons, 1998; Halkitis,Parsons, & Bimbi, 2000). Unfortunately, such risky behaviors have been notedacross all sectors of the gay community throughout the last several years (Halkitis &Wilton, 1999; Kelly, Hoffmann, Rompa, & Gray, 1998; Remien, Halkitis, O’Leary& Hays, 1998; Vanable, Ostrow, McKirnan, Taywaditep, & Hope, 2000) and havebeen associated with both new seroconversions with medication-resistant strains ofHIV (Hecht et al., 1998; Pomerantz, 1999; Shafer, Winters, Palmer, & Merigan,1998) as well as reinfection of HIV+ men with different strains of the HIV virus(Angel et al., 2000; Ramos et al., 1999). Barebacking has becoming increasinglypopular among HIV+ gay men as evidenced in the popular press and has developedwithin a gay cultural context (Halkitis, Parsons, & Bimbi, 2000).

LIMITATIONS

Our findings should be viewed with caution in light of the small sample that was uti-lized in this investigation. Thus, attempts to generalize these findings to all seroposi-tive men would be inappropriate. These 15 men were selected to participate because

423


their behaviors suggested an emphasis on physicality and a likely association of theirsocial construction of a masculine man with physical appearance. While there wasno attempt to prove or disprove hypotheses in this investigation, alternative defini-tions of masculinity were not explored fully. Our goal was to define behaviors andassign meanings among men who upheld this notion of masculinity. Second, all theparticipants were drawn from the New York City metropolitan area, which includesa large and openly vocal gay community, where manifestations of gay identity andmasculinity are expressed openly within the society. While such communities areevident in other cities across the United States, the cultural, political, and ideologicalnature of New York create an environment unlike any other in the country.

In addition, based on the self-reports of biological markers and medication regi-mens, this sample appears to be receiving adequate care for their HIV and to be rela-tively healthy. Maintaining one’s health may be related to the emphasis on the physi-cal described by these men, but also the ability to be concerned about appearancemay be a privilege that only healthy HIV seropositive men can experience. Thus, itis unclear from these data if HIV seropositive men who are less healthy maintainsimilar beliefs and behaviors around masculinity.

While we recognize that our findings are based on a small sample of men, theextensive data gathered from each of our 15 participants certainly reinforce thenotions put forth here and provide the basis of a larger and perhaps quantitativeinvestigation of the phenomena to examine quantitatively the perceptions and atti-tudes toward masculinity and the relationship between these perceptions and sexualand body-enhancing behaviors.

A note should also be made about the sampling and data collection methodolo-gies. Use of the Internet represents a new form of data collection for psychologists.As such, much remains to be learned about this methodology as the bias in recruitingparticipants in this manner for sexually related studies is different from those of tra-ditional methods (Binik, Mah, & Kiesler, 1999). One study of gay men in Los Ange-les has found that those who tend to use the Internet tend to be unemployed, dis-abled, and less educated (Koch & Shockman, 1998). In the general population,Internet users in the United States tend to be male, college educated, middle class,and in their late 30s (The New York Times, 2000). Because we intentionally did notcollect sociodemographic data so to further enhance the privacy of the participants,we cannot comment on this matter. Nonetheless, the validity of the knowledge gen-erated from this investigation appears to be high as men spoke frankly about the sub-ject matter and were willing to communicate on an ongoing basis to clarify theirresponses. Turner and his colleagues (1998) have suggested that this method of datacollection is advantageous as it allows us to gather sensitive information in a mannerthat ensures confidentiality and a high level of anonymity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our investigation is an initial step to try to disentangle the relationships between gay,masculine, and HIV identities. Certainly, more elaborate studies need to be under-taken to further clarify these issues. However, we are left with the impression, basedon the responses of our participants, that the AIDS epidemic has complicated gay

424

PERRY N. HALKITIS

men’s attempts to define their masculinity in a society that views masculinity andhomosexuality as two non-overlapping realities (Badinter, 1992). This emphasis onsurviving AIDS is one that has rested in the minds of gay men since the onset of theAIDS epidemic. Thus, the adoption of behaviors that assure physical strength andvirility, such as resistance exercise and steroid use can be viewed as a natural reac-tion of HIV positive men to counteract lean body mass and side effects of medica-tions. As has been demonstrated in these data, the biological constraints (from thedisease) and social pressures to re-identify in a way that bows to the sexual restric-tions that AIDS demands make it extremely challenging to balance sexual, safe,masculine, gay lives today. The “buff agenda” makes it all simpler as gay men resttheir sense of masculinity on the physical, on the outward appearance, seemingly asan essential element of remaining healthy (Halkitis, 1999a). It is as if the perceptionof the masculine as buff self has moved from being a social construction to one thatis viewed as essential and life-affirming in this period of “the plague.”

While it has been argued elsewhere that the AIDS epidemic has helped to shiftthe emphasis of gay men from the “narrow ethics of sexual freedom” to caregiving(Clark, 1995), the recent advances in HIV treatments, coupled with decreases inAIDS-related deaths appear to have counteracted this movement toward caregiving.Instead, a sense of complacency seems to have permeated all aspects of our societyregarding HIV, and for some HIV+ gay men, this complacency has led to a refocuson the sexual freedoms of the gay community.

The behaviors of HIV negative men have also been affected by this accelerationtoward masculine-as-physical ideal. In a sense, HIV positive men, in their struggle tosurvive the epidemic and in reaching out to the community for support and affirma-tion (Lewis, 1999), have modeled behaviors regarding body image and sexuality thathave been adopted by HIV negative men. Further, the gay community as a whole hassanctioned these behaviors as appropriate, often rejecting those who fail to complywith these norms (Greene, 1997; Signorile, 1997; Sullivan, 1998). As a collective,gay men throughout the United States, partially due to the epidemic and partially dueto the desire to obtain a masculine identity, have applied the “buff agenda” as thestandard (Halkitis, 1999a).

Connell (1995) clearly depicts the dilemma of gay men for whom there is noplace in the social construction of masculinity. Since the 1950s, many gay men haveattempted to construct their own code of masculinity that encompasses the same-sexattraction. Attempts to accomplish this task have been related in part to usurping theappearance of the butch male in place of the limp-wristed, well-groomed aesthete(Harris, 1997). To some extent this “buff agenda” has been in place among gay mensince the 1950s as gay men strove for this physical ideal but has gained acceptabilitydue to the reality of AIDS. The seeds for this movement were laid decades ago; theAIDS epidemic was a catalyst that justified and accelerated it (Halkitis, 1999a). Menwere “dying to look healthy.” In this milieu, conceptions of masculinity and physi-cality become even more indistinguishable.


425

REFERENCES

Angel, S., Kravcik, E., Balaskas, P., Yen, A. D., Badley, D., Cameron, W., & Hu, Y-W. (2000, February). Documentation of HIV-1 superinfection and accelerationof disease progression. Paper presented at the 7th Conference on Retrovirusesand Opportunistic Infections, San Francisco, CA.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development.New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Badinter, E. (1992). On masculine identity. New York: Columbia University Press.Beel, A. (1998). Current perspectives on anabolic steroids. Drug and Alcohol

Review, 17(1), 87-103.Beren, S. E., Hayden, H. A., Wilfley, D. E., & Grilo, C. M. (1996). The influence of

sexual orientation on body dissatisfaction in adult men and women. Interna-tional Journal of Eating Disorders, 20(2), 135-141.

Binik, Y. M., Mah, K., & Kiesler, S. (1999). Ethical issues in conducting sexresearch on the Internet. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 82-90.

Carrigan, T., Connell, B., & Lee, J. (1987). Towards a new sociology of masculinity.In H. Brod (Ed.), The making of masculinities (pp. 63-101). Winchester, MA:Allen & Unwin.

Clark, J. M. (1992). Men’s studies, feminist theology, and gay male sexuality. TheJournal of Men’s Studies, 1, 125-155.

Clark, J. M. (1995). Profeminist men’s studies and gay ethics. The Journal of Men’sStudies, 3, 241-255.

Clark, J. M. (1997). Doing the work of love: I. Men’s studies at the margins. TheJournal of Men’s Studies, 5, 315-331.

Connell, R. W. (1992). A very straight gay: Masculinity, homosexuality, experience,and the dynamics of gender. American Sociological Review, 57, 735-751.

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Dowsett, G. W. (1993). I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours: Gay men, mas-

culinity research, men’s studies, and sex. Theory and Society, 22, 697-709.Flannigan Saint-Aubin, A. (1994). The male body and literary metaphors of mas-

culinity. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 239-258). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gilman, S. L. (1985). Difference and pathology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress.

Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Gough, J. (1989). Theories of sexual identity and the masculinization of gay men. InS. Sheperd & M. Wallis (Eds.), Coming on strong: Gay politics and culture (pp.119-136). London: Unwin Hymen.

Greene, J. (1997, October 19). Hopefuls, street toughs; power brokers; networks;strivers; grande dames; musclemen; exiles; reformers; purists; clones; bigmouths; outsiders; air kissers; fanatics; gossips; nightclubs: Where the boyswent. The New York Times Magazine, pp. 15-21.

Grinspoon, S. K., Corcoran, C., Anderson, E., Schoenfeld, D., Basgoz, N., &Klibanski, A. (1998, June). Long-term effects of androgen administration in

PERRY N. HALKITIS

426

men with AIDS wasting. Poster presented at the 12th World AIDS Conference,Geneva, Switzerland.

Halkitis, P. N. (1999a). Redefining masculinity in the age of AIDS: Seropositive gaymen and the “buff agenda.” In P. Nardi (Ed.), Gay masculinities (pp. 130-151).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Halkitis, P. N. (1999b, September 1). Pec’ing ardor: Gay guise [Letter to the editor].The Village Voice, 44(35), p.59.

Halkitis, P. N., & Kirton, C. (1999). Self-strategies as means of enhancing adherenceto HIV antiretroviral therapies: A Rogerian approach. New York State Journal ofNursing, 30(2), 22-27.

Halkitis, P. N., & Parsons, J. T. (1998). Drawing conclusions on barebacking. TheNew York Blade, September 11(2), p. 19.

Halkitis, P. N., & Parsons, J. T. (2000). Recreational drug use and HIV risk sexualbehavior among men frequenting urban gay venues. Manuscript submitted forpublication.

Halkitis, P. N., Parsons, J. T., & Bimbi, D. S. (2000). Intentional unsafe sex (bare-backing) among gay men who seek sexual partners on the Internet. Manuscriptsubmitted for publication.

Halkitis, P. N., & Wilton, L. (1999). Beyond complacency: The effects of treatmentadvances on HIV transmission. Focus: A Guide to AIDS Research and Counsel-ing, 14(5), 1-5.

Harris, D. (1997). The rise and fall of gay culture. New York: Hyperion.Hecht, F. M., Grant, R., Petropoulos, C., Dillon, B., Chesney, M. A., Tian, H., Hell-

mann, N. S., Bandrapalli, N. I., Digilio, L., Branson, B., & Kahn, J. O. (1998).Sexual transmission of HIV-1 variant resistant to multiple reverse-transcriptaseand protease inhibitors. New England Journal of Medicine, 339, 307-343.

Kaplan, R. M., Anderson, J. P., Patterson, T. L, McCutchan, J. A., Weinrich, J. D.,Heaton, R. K., Atkinson, J. H., Thal, L., Chandler, J., & Grant, I. (1995). Valid-ity of the Quality of Well-Being Scale for persons with human immunodefi-ciency virus infection. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 138-147.

Kelly, J., Hoffman, R., Rompa, D., & Gray, M. L. (1998). Protease inhibitor combi-nation therapies and perceptions of gay men regarding AIDS severity and theneed to maintain safer sex. AIDS, 12, F91-F95.

Klein, A. M. (1993). Little big men; Bodybuilding, subculture and gender construc-tion. Albany, NY: SUNY University Press.

Koch, S., & Shockman, H. E. (1998). Democratizing Internet in the lesbian, gay, andbisexual communities. In B. Ebo (Ed.), Cyberghetto or cybertopia?Race, class,and gender on the Internet (pp. 170-184). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kurtz, S. P. (1999). Butterflies under cover: Cuban and Puerto-Rican gay masculini-ties in Miami. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 7, 371-390.

Lehne, G. (1976). Homophobia among men. In D. Brannon (Ed.), The forty-ninepercent majority: The male sex role (pp. 123-132). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Lewis, J. (1999). Status passages: The experience of HIV-positive gay men. Journalof Homosexuality, 37(3), 87-115.


427

Lynn, D. B. (1969). Parental and sex role identification: A theoretical formulation.Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of per-sonality. Psychological Review, 80(4), 252-253.

Nemecheck, P. M., Stolifer, J., & Sackuvich, L. (1998, June). Preservation ofrestored body cell mass (BCM) and phase angle after discontinuation of humangrowth hormone (R-Hgh; Serostim). Poster presented at the 12th World AIDSConference, Geneva, Switzerland.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Pomerantz, R. J. (1999). Primary HIV-1 resistance; A new phase in the epidemic?Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(12), 1777-1179.

Plummer, D. (1999). One of the boys; Masculinity, homophobia, and modern man-hood. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.

Pronger, B. (1990). Gay jocks: A phenomenology of gay men in athletics. In M. A.Messner & D. F. Sabo (Eds.), Sport, men, and the gender order (pp. 141-152).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.

Rabkin, J. G., Wagner, G. J., & Rabkin, R. (1999). Testosterone treatment of hypog-onadism in patients with HIV/AIDS. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology,19(1), 19-27.

Ramos, A., Tanuri, A., Schechter, M., Rayfield, M. A., Dale, J. H., Cabral, M. C.,Bandea, C. I., Baggs, J., & Pieniazek, D. (1999). Dual and recombinant infec-tions: An integral part of the HIV-1 epidemic in Brazil. Emerging InfectiousDiseases, 5(1), 65-74.

Remien, R. H., Halkitis, P. N., O’Leary, A., & Hays, R. (1998, August). Medicaltreatment advances: Attitudes and sexual risk among HIV-positive men. Paperpresented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Fran-cisco, CA.

Rodriguez-Rosado, R., Garcia-Samaniengo, J., & Soriano, V. (1998). Hepatotoxicityafter introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy. AIDS, 10, 1256.

Roubenoff, R., McDermott, A., Wood, M., & Suri, J. (1998, June). Feasibility ofincreasing lean body mass in HIV-infected adults using progressive resistancetraining. Poster presented at the 12th World AIDS Conference, Geneva,Switzerland.

Schneider, J. A., O’Leary, A., & Jenkins, S. R. (1995). Gender, sexual orientation,and disordered eating. Psychology & Health, 10(2) 113-128.

Shafer, R. W., Winters, M. A., Palmer, S., & Merigan, T. (1998). Multiple concur-rent reverse transcriptase and protease and multidrug resistance of HIV-1 iso-lates from heavily treated patients. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128, 906-911.

Shilts, R. (1987). And the band played on. New York: Viking Penguin.Signorile, M. (1997). Life outside: The Signorile report on gay men: Sex, drugs,

muscles, and the passages of life. New York: Harper Collins.Snijders, F., De Boer, J. B., Steenbergen, B., Schouten, M., Danner, S. A., & Van

Dam, F. S. (1998). Impact of diarrhea and fecal incontinence on the daily life ofHIV-infected patients. AIDS Care, 10, 629-637.

428

PERRY N. HALKITIS

Sullivan, A. (1998). Love undetectable, notes on friendship, sex, and survival. NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf.

Sullivan, A. (2000, April 2). Why men are different; The defining power of testos-terone. The New York Times Magazine, pp. 46-51, 58-59, 69, 73.

The New York Times. (2000). The New York Times 2000 almanac. New York: NewYork Times.

Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. D., Pleck, J. H., & Sonerstein, F.L. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased report-ing with computer survey technology. Science, 280, 867-873.

Vanable, P. A., Ostrow, D. G., McKirnan, D. J., Taywaditepo. K. J., & Hope. B. A.(2000). Impact of combination therapies on HIV risk perceptions and sexual riskamong HIV-positive and HIV-negative gay and bisexual men. Health Psychol-ogy, 19(2), 134-145.

Wood, J. T. (1997). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture (2nd ed.).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.


429

Real Men or Real Teachers?Contradictions in the Lives

of Men Elementary School Teachers

By Paul Sargent, Ph.D.

Sargent explores theprofessional lives ofmen elementary schoolteachers.

Hear them discuss:

• their relationships withfemale peers;

• their alternative teachingstyles;

• what being a “male rolemodel” really means;

• what extra non-teachingduties they are expectedto perform;

• how they cope with theconsistent suspicion overtheir motivations to teachyoung children.

Contradictions in the Lives ofMen Elementary School Teachers

by Paul Sargent, Ph.D.

Real Men or Real Teachers?

Real Men or Real Teachers?(ISBN 0-9671794-3-2)Men’s Studies Press, P.O. Box 32, Harriman, TN 37748 (www.mensstudies.com)$24.95 pbk * Trim size 5.5 x 8.5 * 248 pagesTo order: www.mensstudies.com/sargent or 1-800-247-6553

“Saying that his work is pioneering would be over simplifying.Sargent’s work is evolutionary.”

— Bryan Nelson, Founder, Men in Child Care & Elementary Education

Book Reviews

Reflections on Anger: Women and Men in a Changing Society. By Christa Reiser.Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999, x + 157 pp.

I had difficulty reading Christa Reiser’s book without getting angry at times. PerhapsI should have anticipated my anger given the emotional and political volatility ofgender in our present day society. Is it possible then to write a book on anger withoutgetting angry? In my opinion, Reiser wasn’t able to, and this is what I found difficultto digest about her book. To illustrate this point, in her final chapter, “Toward Gen-der Peace,” Reiser appears to assign disproportionate blame to men for both the cur-rent and future states of gender relations:

What the women in all of these studies are saying repeatedly isthat they no longer accept and tolerate domineering, condescend-ing, inequitable, and physically and sexually abusive or exploitivebehaviors and attitudes. It would [therefore] seem appropriate tostop teaching men that they are superior or privileged in any wayin regard to women, that they have a right to hoist their sexualdesires on women, and that it is masculine to be either physicallyor emotionally aggressive. Instead, let us teach men to be morecommunicative, sensitive, and responsible. On the other hand, italso behooves us to encourage women to be more competent,secure, and sensitive, and less manipulative and deceitful. (p. 142)

On the occasions when I interpreted this tone in the book, besides feeling defensive Iwas left wondering how such feedback would foster “gender peace” instead of frac-turing it further? Fortunately, reading in a broader light and shelving my emotions, Ifound Reflections on Anger to offer a valuable discourse to understanding and ame-liorating gender conflict in our society.

As the book title implies, Reflections on Anger: Women and Men in a ChangingSociety explores anger between the sexes within the context of changing societalgender norms. The book is built around “Reiser’s analysis” and interpretation of 50in-depth interviews of mostly middle-aged, middle-class women and men in semi-

Permission to reprint a book review printed in this section may be obtained from the reviewer.

431

rural North Carolina. The ultimate purpose of the book is to uncover explanations foranger between the sexes to create greater gender harmony.

Reiser contends anger is too often overlooked by researchers, perhaps as a resultof our personal discomfort with the emotion—with its intensity, its unpredictability,its threat to our sense of control, and uncertain norms about displaying anger. Reiserfeels it’s essential to understand anger’s role in gender relations so the sexes can“reduce it, manage it, and move forward to gender peace” (p. 6). Most prior researchon anger and gender has focused on only one sex’s experience of anger, and not nec-essarily in relation to the opposite sex.

Reiser explores intergender anger at three levels of experience: personal, gen-eral, and abstract. Respondents are asked about their anger toward the opposite sexbased on their close, personal experiences with members of the other sex; their gen-eral experiences with or perceptions of the opposite sex; and finally, their personaltheories about why their own sex may be angry with members of the opposite sex. Ina clever move, Reiser goes a step further by asking respondents what angers themabout their own sex, and to theorize why the opposite sex may be angry at membersof the respondent’s sex. This multicontextual approach allows Reiser to comparewhether and how each sex’s anger complaints converge across the different contextsof experiences, as well as to compare how close in agreement the sexes are on whatmakes each other angry. That is, are behaviors that males attribute to makingfemales angry consistent with those behaviors females actually report, and viceversa? The beauty of this information is it informs scholars of the nature of the gapbetween the sexes; the closer the two sexes agree on what makes each other angry,the less gap there remains to be bridged to harmonious relations.

The layout of Reiser’s book is divided into essentially three parts. Chapters 1-5provide some overview of theories of anger and reasons why anger might arise ingender relations. Chapter 5 also provides an informative background of respondents’anger beliefs and experiences from their families of origin. Chapters 6 and 7 detailReiser’s thematic findings on men’s and women’s angers toward each other, as wellas toward their own genders, across personalized, generalized, and abstract levels ofexperience. The findings, which progress across the different levels of experienceand alternate by sex, are a little difficult to follow. I found myself having to back upto remind myself which experience level (personal, general, or abstract) the findingswere reflecting upon. However, a benefit of this format was it allowed for quickcomparisons between the sexes. Chapters 8 and 9 discuss each sex’s positive andnegative evaluations of the perceived impacts of societal changes on gender relationsand provide a helpful synthesis of the study’s findings as well as implications forreducing gender conflicts.

So what angers men about women? And women about men? Curious readerswill need to see Reiser’s book for the whole story. A brief sample is given here. Themajority of both male and female respondents reported being angered by a lack ofrespect as well as irresponsible behavior by the opposite sex. Both sexes also con-curred that changing gender norms have in varying ways contributed to increasedgender conflict. In terms of gender distinctions, Reiser assessed female respondentsto be angrier and more specific and consistent about what made them angry. Malerespondents were more likely to believe other men were angry at women, rather than

BOOK REVIEWS

432

arriving at this evaluation from personal experiences. Unfortunately, both sexes’appraisals of what angered the opposite sex about their own sex were incongruentwith the opposite sex’s actual reports, suggesting a gap in understanding.

I would have liked to have read more in-depth narratives in Reiser’s findings.The author’s use of narrative was predominantly in the form of sentence fragmentsor short sentences. Although this brevity makes for faster reading, I would have pre-ferred a greater proportion of lengthier narratives (e.g., paragraphs), which offergreater opportunities for interpretation by the reader. Narratives that are lacking insufficiency may leave the reader wondering if they’re getting the essence of what therespondent said or what the interviewer heard, which may be different.

Reiser’s book should provide a stimulating springboard for further research. Iwould be interested to know the meanings respondents attach to their reasons forbeing angry. For example, when women and men identify “irresponsibility” as asource of anger as they did in Reiser’s study, should we presume that their meaningsof “irresponsibility” are congruent? Or, are such explanations vulnerable to misinter-pretation by one sex compared to how the other sex intends it? To help assess thegeneralizability of Reiser’s findings, it would be useful to assess gendered angeramong men and women in other walks of life. Also, would interviewer gender affectthe tone of responses from same-sex versus opposite-sex respondents? Irrespective ofthe focus of future research, researchers will do well to follow the precept of mutualrespect to both genders. The respondents in Reiser’s study have informed us so.

ROY FISH

The Ohio State UniversityColumbus, Ohio

Treating Emotional Disorder in Gay Men. By Martin Kantor. Westport, Connecti-cut: Praeger Publishers, 1999, xi + 174pp.

I wasn’t expecting to like a book with “treating, emotional disorder, and gay men” inthe title. As a gay man who works with gay men in various settings, including as acounsellor, I am often fearful of words like “treating” and “disorder” in the contextof gay men’s lives, particularly with the history of psychiatry of which we are famil-iar. However, Martin Kantor, in writing Treating Emotional Disorder in Gay Men,has produced a book that would benefit social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists,counsellors, nurse-clinicians, and others who work with gay men experiencing emo-tional difficulties. In fact, in the end I quite like this book and suspect that it wouldbe not only helpful, but might in fact re-frame some of the thinking and practice thatcontinues to go on in the counselling of gay men.

Kantor presents a discussion of the various types of psychotherapy used in treat-ing psychopathologies in gay men. He identifies: (A) Affirmative: based on theschool of thought which supports that homophobia and heterosexism is the primary,if not the sole, cause of psychopathology in gay men; (b) Reparative: which supportsthe notion that homosexuality is a pathology in and of itself and can be repaired; and(c) Supportive: which is, in general, “less concerned about the patients’ sexualitythan the patients’ intra psychic and interpersonal problems” (p. 7). Supportive psy-

BOOK REVIEWS

433

chotherapy is discussed more fully than the other two approaches and is used as theframework for discussion of various DSM-IV disorders and psychopathologies.

In this initial discussion, Kantor identifies his professional and political beliefsat the outset of the book, which I very much appreciated. For example, he says thathe supports a psychotherapy that incorporates a sociopolitical analysis as well as thepersonal needs of the patient. Second, he supports a therapeutic approach that func-tions within the constructs of the DSM-IV but is clear that this approach must be fil-tered through the gauze of the homosexual lifestyle. And, although Kantor talkspejoratively about affirmative psychotherapy, he recognizes the need for, and use of,this approach in facilitating certain aspects of what he believes is the most beneficialtherapeutic approach: supportive psychotherapy. Kantor supplies his reasons why hedoes not support any aspect of the reparative approach. He does, however, point outthat it has been, and continues to be, used as a means of therapy within some situa-tions in therapeutic psychology and counselling.

With regard to supportive psychotherapists, Kantor says that they “recognizethat a gay man’s problems can be as much the product of his personal difficulties asof society’s disapproval of his homosexual lifestyle” (p. 7). In addition, he says they“are at once affirmative in their attitude toward, as well as traditionally psychologi-cally minded about their patients” (p. 7). Finally, Kantor locates his philosophicaland practical positions within psychotherapy by saying: “The goal of supportive psy-chotherapists is to make a dynamically based diagnosis the basis of a rational,doable, treatment plan attuned to the special needs of gays as a group and to theunique problems of the specific individuals undergoing therapy” (p. 9). In detailingthe techniques of making a diagnosis using a supportive therapeutic framework,Kantor suggests therapists (1) determine the patient’s chief complaint, (2) take a pasthistory, (3) look for affective changes like depression, euphoria, or flattening affect,(4) evaluate insight, and (5) identify motivation for treatment. In addition, he notesthat certain special parameters need to be considered when assessing prevalence orexistence of psychopathology. Kantor proposes “being gay can, and often does,change the superficial presentation of familiar psychopathology” (p. 11).

Following his introductory chapter, Kantor proceeds to address the followingpsychopathologies under the treatment paradigm of supportive psychotherapy, dis-cussing each in terms of its effects and consequences for gay men: (1) paranoia, (2)depression, (3) grief, (4) hypomania, (5) The Paraphilias, (6) disorders due to stressand trauma, (7) The Personality Disorders—Cluster A—odd, eccentric, (8) The Per-sonality Disorders—Cluster B—dramatic, emotional, erratic, (9) The PersonalityDisorders—Cluster C—anxious, fearful, other and (10) Identity Disorder.

Kantor treats each of the above chapters in such a way as to maintain a level ofpractical professionalism while at the same time capturing and holding the attentionof the reader through the use of stories and informative anecdotes. He begins hisconcluding chapter, “Supportive Psychotherapy,” with “supportive psychotherapyfor gay men with emotional problems can eliminate a broad range of emotional diffi-culties in gay men” (p. 141) and suggests that therapists treat the man in the contextof his homosexuality, not the homosexual man and his emotional problems. Withthis in mind, Kantor believes that most gay men enter psychotherapy with the sametypes of problems as straight men.

BOOK REVIEWS

434

Kantor manages a fine line, I would suggest, rather well. That is, he maintainsthat gay men are both similar and different from their straight counterparts withoutpathologizing their sexuality, or them because of their sexuality, while at the sametime recognizing the need to remember that the client is gay and may have lived, orfinds himself presently, in social contexts that are homophobic and/or heterosexistand, therefore, needs a different therapeutic approach because of his sexuality.

So in the end, even though I might have some difficulty with the discourse thatframes the issue of gay men experiencing emotional difficulties, I do recommendthis book to therapists who work with men and gay men in particular.

BLYE FRANK

Mount Saint Vincent UniversityHalifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Body Image: Understanding Body Dissatisfaction in Men, Women and Children.By Sarah Grogan. London: Routledge, 1999, vi + 225 pp.

Chapter 1 of Body Image is a preview of the upcoming chapters. Grogan starts outChapter 2 looking at how we have moved toward seeing thinness as healthy. Groganreports that up until the 1920s thinness was not seen as an ideal. Slenderness, shecontends, is not an outcome of medical research, but results more from social pres-sures to be slender, grounded in “culturally based esthetic preferences” and healthconcerns. Grogan begins to introduce men into the arena of body image, indicatingthat there has been movement away from the male body as an object having homo-erotic connotations. She states that advertisers are using the naked male torso inmainstream advertising on a regular basis.

Chapter 3 focuses on women and body satisfaction. Grogan references variousresearch studies that find women are in general dissatisfied with their bodies, specifi-cally the lower portion. She also discusses how women are quick to identify what is“wrong” with their bodies, but find it quite difficult to identify parts of their bodythey find satisfactory. Grogan shares research done by Kevin Thompson that foundwomen tend to overestimate parts of their body size by approximately 25%. Theauthor also discusses gender differences when it comes to exercise. She sitesresearch by Furnham and Greaves that women were more likely than men to identifyexercising as a way to control weight, change body shape, and promote attractive-ness and health. The author also looks at female bodybuilding, citing a broad spec-trum of views: one view sees female bodybuilding as the “radical cutting-edge offeminist resistance to cultural ideals” (p. 48); another as women’s attempt to con-form their bodies into a culturally acceptable firm, toned, and solid form as a resultof cultural pressures. The reader will also find data about cosmetic surgery and gen-der differences. Grogan cites, among others, Kathryn Morgan, who believes thatwomen may feel they are making a free choice about cosmetic surgery, but statesthey are not free because of patriarchal, cultural pressures.

Chapter 4 looks at men and body satisfaction. Herein, there is a general agree-ment that most men are interested in developing a mesomorphic shape, rather thanectomorphic or endomorphic build. She cites research that men with the mesomor-

BOOK REVIEWS

435

phic shape are seen as “strong, happy, helpful and brave” (p. 58). The author reportsfindings by Cash that 34% of men were dissatisfied with their looks, 41% with theirweight, and 32% with muscle tone. Grogan shares results from a study in which onehundred men were given a body image questionnaire; whereas only 6.3% said theywere generally not happy with their body, 72% said they would feel better if theybecame more muscular. Also, 23% of the men reported exercising for health and fit-ness, 41% for weight/shape/appearance, 21% for stress relief, and 30% for socialreasons, and 40% said they had dieted at one point. It is also reported at theBelvedere Clinic that male clients pursuing cosmetic surgery had risen from 10% in1989 to 40% in 1994.

Chapter 5 introduces the reader to media effects on the body image of men andwomen. The author indicates there is agreement that there is less pressure on menthan women to fit a particular shape or size. She does indicate a change in society’sattitudes toward the male body, a change in the images we see of the “young, lean,muscular male body” (p. 96), which has put greater pressure on men to look thinnerand more muscular. Grogan also cites various researchers who connect increasinginstances of body dissatisfaction and low self-esteem in men to a greater pressure toconform to a body ideal. In general, the author contends, whereas women get theirbody image cues from media representations, men do not:

most adult men we have interviewed report minimal effects ofmedia imagery on their body esteem. Adults and 16-year-oldswere more likely to report how they compared themselves withmale friends and wanted to match those who were more muscular.An interesting difference between interviews with men and withwomen is that adult men tended to see media images as realisticgoals. There was a general feeling that they could look like themedia images if they wanted to, but that they did not care enoughabout the way they look to spend time weight training. Spendingtime trying to look good was generally thought to be feminine—and therefore inappropriate—behavior. (p. 111)

Chapter 6 addresses age, social class, ethnicity, and sexuality. Here the authorreports that girls as young as eight report dissatisfaction with their body weight andshape and indicate a preference for the socially acceptable slender body. AlthoughGrogan indicates a lack of research about body satisfaction in boys, she cites onestudy that found that 31% of nine-year-olds, 22% of 10-year-olds, 34% of 11-year-olds, and 41% of 12-year-olds wanted to be thinner. She also states that boys areaware of differences in body shape at approximately five years, when they indicate apreference for mesomorphic build. Grogan says that when looking at pre-adolescentboys and girls, both groups are fearful of becoming fat, and they therefore yield tothe slender ideal. When looking at changes in body satisfaction in females as theyage, Grogan found that there was no change from age 10 to over 60. She concludedthat social pressures to be thin impact women of all ages. She also found that “oldermen are just as dissatisfied as younger men with their attractiveness, even thoughthey move further away from the slender, muscled societal ideal as they become

BOOK REVIEWS

436

older” (p. 131). When considering sexuality and body image, she cites a study com-pleted at the University of Washington, which found that gay men and heterosexualwomen had the highest levels of body dissatisfaction, to the point where gay menwere even less satisfied than heterosexual women were.

Grogan’s conclusions and implications are the focus of Chapter 7. She states thatrace, gender, and sexuality are likely to predict body dissatisfaction and that age orclass is unlikely to have an impact. Men are likely to be more satisfied than womenare, but older, white, and gay men may be more dissatisfied. Grogan also reports thatself-esteem correlates highly with body satisfaction in men and women and that indi-viduals with high self-esteem tend to feel good about their bodies. The author looks atpsychological techniques for improving body image. She believes that increasing per-ception of control via group discussions may result in improved body image. She alsosuggests that training in self-efficacy as well as assertiveness may increase body sat-isfaction. The author also suggests that moderate exercise, for the purpose of “mas-tery rather than aesthetics” (p. 184), can improve body satisfaction.

I found this book to be a well documented review of the research on body imagein the United States and the United Kingdom. This book’s greatest strength is its useas a springboard into current research on body image; it provides the reader with suf-ficient direction to pursue other areas of body satisfaction. As a counselor, I wouldlikely direct a client to a source with more first-person narratives related to bodyimage and satisfaction. I believe this book is an excellent reference point to begin aresearch effort or to find supporting research for a class lecture on body satisfaction.

STU JOHNSON

Luther CollegeDecorah, Iowa

Sentimental Men: Masculinity and the Politics of Affect in American Culture.Edited by Mary Chapman and Glenn Hendler. Berkeley: University of California,1999, 288 pp.

Sentimental Men collects 13 essays examining the intersections of sentimentality andmasculinity in nineteenth-century texts and practices. Work with a predominantly lit-erary/textual focus (concerned with canon formation and discursivity) and culturalistwork (interested more in social practices and power relations) brings welcome illumi-nation to a neglected figure—the “sentimental man” erased from the critical account-ing of nineteenth-century literature and society. As the scholarship of gender and racehas done, this recuperative work expands knowledge of certain blind spots of canonformation. It also demonstrates the interesting cultural truth that purportedly marginalfigures (like the sentimental man) have always been a significant part of our culturallandscape—in fiction, advice manuals, historical narrative, and the marketplace. Inthis wide-ranging collection, the sentimental man emerges not as the social threat orproblem assumed by traditional criticism but as a liminal figure through which men’sstudies scholars are able both to problematize the critical binaries of the Westerncanon and to enrich our historical understanding of American masculinity.

Chapman and Hendler introduce their volume with Time magazine’s jibe at

BOOK REVIEWS

437

George Bush’s weeping (reported as “surprising”) during a performance by the OakRidge Boys. Chapman and Hendler take Time’s “surprise” as a cue; SentimentalMen, they write, is intended to “revise and complicate any understanding of senti-mentality that occludes the meaning of such performances of masculine affect—tomake the history and cultural significance of an American president’s tears more leg-ible” (p. 2). The fact that this linking of sentimentality and masculinity at the veryseat of white male power does nothing to threaten or destabilize that power invitessome questions: What do we gain politically by uncovering and explicating the senti-mental man? Is he the transgressive figure his defiance of traditional categories sug-gests? What does articulating public masculinity to a discourse previously “owned”by others (women, gay men, the “private and personal”) add to resources for resist-ing traditional male dominance? Could the recuperation of sentimentality from con-notations of anti-intellectualism and banality by revealing its previously occludedpresence within the traditional American canon provide fodder for those wishing todefend that canon as more inclusive (of “feminine” or marginal discourse, forinstance) than critics of gender and race have claimed?

Several essays here deploy the sentimental man to open up questions about cul-tural practices. Karen Sanchez-Eppler’s “Then We Clutch Hardest: On the Death ofa Child and the Replication of an Image” and Glenn Hendler’s “Bloated Bodies andSober Sentiment: Masculinity in 1840s Temperance Narratives” identify the senti-mental man as part of an extremely flexible and adaptable hegemony of white maledominance. Their descriptions of post-mortem child photography and sobriety testi-monials, respectively, illustrate that, rather than being a threat to status quo mas-culinity, the nineteenth-century sentimental man was part of a more broad-reachingmale hegemony than that portrayed in either traditional historiography or its feministrevisions. Even as this research expands our knowledge of nineteenth-century socialrelations, it adds to the stores of resistance necessary for facing our current condi-tions by reminding us of the length and breadth of male hegemony’s reach.

Bruce Burgett’s “Masochism and Male Sentimentalism: Charles BrockdenBrown’s Clara Howard” and Martin Berger’s “Sentimental Realism in ThomasEakin’s Late Portraits” hinge their arguments on ideas about affect and the body andthe importance of embodied emotion to any discussion of gendered/gendering prac-tices. Berger reveals a discursive connection (a commitment to emotional truth andpsychological honesty) between sentimental portraiture and the later realism ofEakin’s work that disrupts the masculine/feminine binary dividing (and mutuallydefining) sentimentalism and realism in American art criticism. Burgett argues thatClara Howard offers a critique of the logics of embodiment that came to dominatenineteenth-century criticism by proposing the “counterpossibility of ungendered sen-timental citizenship”(p. 220). This counterpossibility (that gender, sexual identity,and citizenship are not “embodied” in any natural or simple way) provides a persua-sive link between Brown’s novel and recent arguments over identity politics in femi-nist and queer theory.

The ways in which critical readings of literature are continually re-inflected bydevelopments in theoretical perspectives can tend to make the social context of liter-ary production seem rather too malleable, too easily recoupable to whatever termsthe critic brings to the textual object. The triumph of the literary critic (at revealing a

438

BOOK REVIEWS

suppressed figure, or identifying an exclusionary trope) sometimes belittles the realsocial effects of binaries that align, for instance, masculinity and femininity into sep-arate but unequal spheres. While the exertions of canonical exclusion can be undonetextually by the diligent critic, the ideological power of male hegemony and whiteprivilege that misreads and excludes in the first instance is not so easily countered.Fortunately, the textually focussed essays here tend to discuss literature as a kind ofhistorical record, a guide to the structure of feeling of its time. Vincent J. Bertolini’s“Fireside Chastity: The Erotics of Sentimental Bachelorhood in the 1850s” proposesthe bachelor of nineteenth-century fiction as a “purely conceptual entity … and not… a practical (that is, activity-oriented) sexual identity” (p. 21). In this, Bertolininotes the beginnings of a modern identity for the single male, one suspendedbetween boyhood and manhood, perpetually on a trajectory from the subversivespace of his lonely fireside to the domestic space of marriage and family. KirstenSilva Gruesz (in “Feeling for the Fireside: Longfellow, Lynch, and the Topographyof Poetic Power”) notes the way in which Longfellow worked the margins of intel-lect/intuition, originality/sentimentality, and civic/domestic in his writing, to thedetriment of his standing in the canon. Gruesz discusses Longfellow’s “domestic”poetry in the context of the social and discursive relations that, to an extent, dictatedits popular reception, subject matter, and critical evaluation.

The major accomplishment of this volume is that the transgressions and compli-cations already present in the supposedly monolithic canon are brought to light,adding texture and detail to the discourse of a nineteenth-century we think wealready know, but which, in some ways, we’ve been prevented from knowing at all.In this way, Sentimental Men is a substantial, and damning, sheaf of evidence; testa-ment to an American society that has always been more complicated than its officialversion. As the editors note, presidents from Washington to Bush have unashamedlyshed tears in public. Given the panorama of male sentiment on display in this book,only a magazine as inextricably tied to the masculine public sphere as Time couldstill be surprised by this.

JON PHELOUNG

Augustana CollegeRock Island, Illinois

Taking Care of Men: Sexual Politics In The Public Mind. By Anthony McMahon,Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999, vii + 232 pages.

Reading Anthony McMahon’s new book reminds one of those pundits who say thatthe new man is everywhere but he is nowhere to be found, at least not in discussionsof the most important aspects of real change. McMahon wrote this book because hefelt that “something was missing from most discussions about men and socialchange: A serious recognition of the central role men’s material interests play intheir motivation to defend the gendered status quo” (p. vi). McMahon concludes thatjust as women continue to take care of men, so too does the new rhetoric about menand change (more rhetoric than change). Despite all the talk of SNAG’s (SensitiveNew Age Guys) and mass mediated discussions of the post-feminist era, we are still

BOOK REVIEWS

439

left with an arbitrary and unjust sexual division of domestic labour. Why? Becauseunderlying all of the rhetoric, men’s material interests present us with strong mater-ial motivation to resist pro-equity change. While making his case, the author gives usa broad analysis based in statistical data, interview transcripts, and media analysisthat take into consideration a variety of social, psychological, media, and culturaltheories made accessible to scholars in a variety of disciplines.

The book is divided into three parts. “Part One: The Interests of Men” containstwo chapters that serve to introduce readers from a variety of disciplines to the book.The first discusses the traditional meaning of having a “wife” as part of the divisionof labour and a male right. McMahon resists the temptation to develop a universalhuman nature onto which to ground his analysis. Instead, he pursues a middle coursediscussing the social construction of masculinity in relation to a struggle over inter-ests that are historically and socially dependent. Here McMahon takes us to anuncomfortable zone of analysis claiming that much of the silence in men’s studiesabout the real reason for the sexual division of labour is something that any radicalfeminist knew 30 years ago: that men benefit from the exploitation of women. Thesecond chapter begins to delve more deeply into this issue exploring the actual phys-ical and bodily work that goes into nurturing and the daily reproducing of humans bylinking it to an analysis of some of the grand narratives (Marxism in particular) thathave guided social analysis. Here we see that Marxism’s (for example) favouring ofanalysis of production over reproductive work is linked to the choices women havehad to make between less competitive caring labour and “competing with the boyson their own terms” (p. 60). McMahon correctly points out that many of our mostprecious social scientific theories have been directly linked to the effort to resistchanging men. Given the traditional place of most male academics and theorists (ajob, the old joke said, “requires a wife”), in the gendered division of labour, anotherreason for the silence becomes clear. Importantly, the more we perpetuate thefemale/male sameness versus difference debate, it allows us to avoid looking at thereally difficult questions such as why men resist change. Here we see that a veryimportant part of change will be a restructuring of the discourse to issues of a deeplypersonal nature. McMahon’s detailed analysis of the sexual division of domesticlabour reinforces research arguing that men constitute a social and not a biologicalcategory.

“Part Two: The Revolving Door” contains three chapters that serve as the core ofthe book. McMahon looks at the “stalled rhetoric” (p. 65) highlighting the ways inwhich the so-called revolution in men has stalled. Here McMahon draws on socialscientific data showing that women still do the bulk of domestic activity and earn sig-nificantly less than men earn. Who is it that takes parental leave? She whose incomeis typically less and she who has maternity leave as opposed to he who likely has nopaternal leave. Whose career is set back by the mutual decision to have children andwho will be poorer for it if the partnership dissolves? She who typically made the“choice” to take leave and remain home with the children for a period after birth.McMahon mentions groups like the American Promise Keepers who perpetuate apublic discourse and a private practice of misogyny as well as a backlash against pro-feminist men. The ability of such groups, who have a clear and vested interest in theperpetuation of patriarchy, to capture media attention and public fascination is one

440

BOOK REVIEWS

more aspect of the effort of men to resist gender change in McMahon’s view. In thismedia marketplace of images, the new man becomes just one more “stock image inthe cultural agenda” (p. 115). McMahon concludes this middle part of the book with athought-provoking analysis of the place of “new man” imagery in the cultural notionthat men need to be civilized by women. He posits that new man imagery is, in part,another stage in the long history of making men fit for civilization.

“Part Three: The Blocked Door” takes us deeper into the most important contri-bution of this book—its claim that men are employing a variety of strategies to avoidopen discussion of the real ways they benefit from patriarchal relations, not the leastof which is the amount of free time men have at their disposal in relation to theirspouse, especially after the birth of a child. After 20 years of promise, the real ques-tion remains off the public agenda. Indeed it is hidden by discourses such as the per-petuation of the difference versus sameness debate; myths of the ways in whichchange hurts men psychologically or takes them from their essential masculine (readbiological) nature; the efforts of the Christian and conservative right to dominateboth women in the home and discourse on gender in public media. Each of theseprovide remarkable vehicles for avoiding the biggest problem of all: The basic factthat men benefit from the exploitation of women in material ways. For those of uspractising gender reform and change, we learn from this book that the personal is thepolitical for men as for women. If you want to know about the kind of world a manwants to live in, look at the kind of domestic relations he perpetuates in his ownhome. The home is where the heart is, and it is also at the core of real social changefor McMahon.

If I have one criticism of the book, it is that it needed to go further in an explo-ration of strategies for dealing with the avoidance of the real issue for those inter-ested in real change. Nonetheless, the book gives us much to think about including amuch-needed reassessment of our most cherished views about what the really impor-tant issues are. For years I have been fighting the same battle as McMahon in mysociology classes, often pointing to examples from my own domestic life. Men reallyinterested in changing the unjust and arbitrary gender order would do well to do thesame. This important book, which I recommend highly to educators, policymakersand activists, will help us to look at the most important and deeply personal ques-tions of all. In the meantime, much of the discourse on the new man that so fasci-nates the public mind will continue to take care of men.

GERRY COULTER

Bishop’s UniversityLennoxville, Quebec

Canada

BOOK REVIEWS

441

442

Contributors

Katherine Allen is professor of family studies in the Department of Human Devel-opment and faculty affiliate in the Women’ s Studies Program at Virginia Polytech-nic Institute and State University. She is the past chair of the Virginia Tech Acad-emy of Teaching Excellence and directs the Women’s Leadership Initiative of theCollege of Human Resources and Education. She teaches courses and conductsresearch in the areas of family diversity, human sexuality, and feminist family stud-ies. She is the author of numerous articles and three books: Single Women/FamilyTies: Life Histories of Older Women; Women and Families: Feminist Reconstruc-tions (co-authored with Kristine Baber); and Handbook of Family Diversity (co-edited with David Demo and Mark Fine). ([email protected])

Scott T. Allison is professor of psychology at the University of Richmond, Virginia.He received his Ph.D. in social psychology at the University of California, SantaBarbara, in 1987. His research interests are in the areas of social cognition, inter-group relations, social interdependence, and decision making. He and his colleagueshave published over 45 articles in professional journals and presented more than 65papers at professional meetings. Allison is currently the webmaster of the Society ofSoutheastern Social Psychologists. ([email protected])

James K. Beggan is an associate professor of psychology at the University ofLouisville in Kentucky. He received his Ph.D. in psychology from the University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara. His research interests include the psychology of owner-ship, self-enhancement, and decision-making. Recently, he has started a line ofresearch that examines psychological processes associated with medical decision-making, including seeking cosmetic surgery and breast cancer rescreening. Begganregularly teaches courses in social psychology and research design. ([email protected])

Gerry Coulter is an associate professor of sociology and coordinator of the women’sstudies programme at Bishop’s University in Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada. ([email protected])

Kimberly Kay Danos received her Bachelor of Arts and Science with majors inbiology and Asian studies from Regis University in 1993. She continued her educa-

tion at Kansas State University completing her Master of Science in counseling andpersonnel services in 1997. Danos enhanced her graduate education with specialemphasis on counseling, biofeedback, and stress management. She was an activemember of the Kansas State University counseling services staff and research teamfrom 1995 to 1999. In 1999, Danos accepted a position with the Human ServicesPlanning Alliance in Des Moines, Iowa. She now focuses her research and work onearly childhood issues. Her research continues to encompass gender studies, appliedmethods of biofeedback, effects of stress on brain development, the psychology ofpoverty, and violent deviant behavior. ([email protected])

Roy Fish received his B.S. in psychology from Ohio State University. He is currentlya doctoral student in human development and family science at Ohio State Universityand is a member of the American Men’s Studies Association. His research interestsinclude gender, marital satisfaction, and divorce. ([email protected])

Blye Frank is an associate professor in the Department of Education at Mount SaintVincent University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. In addition to teaching graduatecourses in research, he is head of the educational foundations programs and associatechair of graduate studies in education. ([email protected])

Amanda Goldrick-Jones is an associate professor in the Centre for Academic Writ-ing and women’s studies at the University of Winnipeg. A rhetorical critic with alongstanding interest in gender issues and men’s relations with feminism, she seeswritten communication as an effective way of conveying attitudes, values, and ideo-logical differences. Her 1996 dissertation focused on Canada’s White Ribbon Cam-paign against violence to women, and her published work has discussed this cam-paign, Britain’s Achilles Heel magazine, and other profeminist projects. She has spenttime at the Changing Men Collection at Michigan State University and has visited pro-feminist groups in North America, Britain, and Australia. Currently she is completinga book entitled Men Who Believe in Feminism. ([email protected])

Perry Halkitis is a professor at New York University School of Education’s Depart-ment of Applied Psychology and co-director of the Center for HIV/AIDS Educa-tional Studies and Training. He is principal investigator of two major studies, theProtease Inhibitor Longitudinal Life Study (Project PILLS) and the Club DrugMen’s Health Study (Project BUMPS), both funded by the National Institute onDrug Abuse. Project PILLS seeks to determine the impact of recreational drug useon adherence to protease inhibitors among HIV positive men who have sex withmen. He is also co-prinicpal investigator for the Centers for Disease ControlSeropositive Urban Men’s Intervention Trial. ([email protected])

Mark A. Hurst is a licensed psychologist conducting private practice and consulta-tion in Olympia, Washington. Raised in a family of boatbuilders, tugboaters, andschool teachers in the rural Pacific Northwest, he earned a master’s degree in clinicalpsychology from Eastern Washington University and was awarded the doctorate byBall State University in Muncie, Indiana. Dr. Hurst serves as adjunct faculty at the

443

CONTRIBUTORS

Evergreen State College, where he sponsors student-directed internships and createssocial psychology and men’s studies courses. His other projects address humandevelopment and transition, media literacy, and film production about men’s innerlives. ([email protected])

Stu Johnston works in the counseling service at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa.He has worked as a counselor for five years and has been a member of AMSA forthree years. He has been married for 16 years and has a 10-year-old daughter.

Chi-Wei Lin, Ph.D. Kansas State University 1999, is director of the student counsel-ing center and assistant professor in the College of Humanities and Education atChung Yuan Christian University. Lin’s clinical and research interests include per-sonality disorders, anxiety disorders, at-risk youth, and voluntary services. ([email protected])

Jon Pheloung is an instructor of speech communication at Augustana College inRock Island, Illinois, where he teaches classes in political, economic, and socialaspects of communication. He is currently completing a dissertation on stardom andits connection to contemporary cultural formations. ([email protected])

Andreas G. Philaretou, a native of Kyrenia, a small coastal city on the island ofCyprus, earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in sociology from Virginia Techin Blacksburg, Virginia. He is currently a doctoral candidate at Virginia Tech. ([email protected])

John M. Robertson, Ph.D., is a psychologist at University Counseling Services anda member of the graduate faculty for the Department of Counseling and EducationalPsychology at Kansas State University. He also provides clinical services for South-wind Counseling Services in Manhattan, Kansas. His professional interests focus onissues related to the psychology of men, including relationships, emotionality, abuse,gender-role transitions, and help-seeking behavior. ([email protected])

Lois A. West is an associate professor of sociology at Florida International Univer-sity in Miami, Florida. She has a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Califor-nia, Berkeley, and is author of Militant Labor in the Philippines and editor of Femi-nist Nationalism. ([email protected])

Joyce Woodford, M.S., is a senior clinician at University Counseling Services,Kansas State University. Her therapy and research interests are help-seeking, genderdifferences, and issues of peace. Her work has included foci on women’s issues,childhood abuse survival, and relationships. She also has an interest in the contempo-rary subject of social interest through Adlerian Individual Psychology. She is com-pleting a doctorate in clinical psychology at the Fielding Institute. ([email protected])

444

CONTRIBUTORS


The following people served as reviewers for one or more manuscripts submitted toThe Journal of Men’s Studies during the 1999/2000-volume year. Their contributionto the reviewing process is gratefully acknowledged.

Richard BenjaminStephen B. BoydHarry BrodDavid Buchbinder

D. Scott CampbellJohn CartaFalsaTeresa CooneyWill H. Courtenay

William Doty

Martin FiebertSam FemianoAbby L. FerberKory Floyd

Robert Gurney

Ian HarrisKylo-Patrick HartAminifu R. HarveyRoy Hopkins

W. Brad Johnson

Edward Kruk

Anthony LanzilloBogart LeashoreJason Low

Wade MackeyKenneth MazlenTodd MigliaccioMark Muesse

James O’Neil

William Pollack

Lee E. Ross

Jerome SchieleMichael Stevenson

Richard Tewksbury

Joanne Urschel

Chris Whaley

445

Index for Volume 9THE JOURNAL OF MEN’S STUDIES

VOLUME 9 NUMBER 1 FALL 2000

ARTICLES

An Analysis of Stereotype Refutation in Playboy by an Editorial Voice:The Advisor HypothesisJAMES K. BEGGAN, PATRICIA GAGNÉ, AND SCOTT T. ALLISON

"Looks Maketh the Man": The Female Gaze and the Construction of MasculinityKEVIN GODDARD

Fathers’ Qualitative and Quantitative Involvement:An Investigation of Attachment, Play, and Social InteractionsKERRY KAZURA

Representing Gay Men on American TelevisionKYLO-PATRICK R. HART

Behavioral Factors Associated with Disease, Injury, and Death among Men:Evidence and Implications for PreventionWILL H. COURTENAY

BOOK REVIEWS

Unlocking the Iron Gate: The Men’s Movement, Gender Politics, and American Culture by Michael Schwalbe.Reviewed by EDWARD READ BARTON

Ye Heart of a Man: The Domestic Life of Men in Colonial New England by Lisa Wilson.Reviewed by MARK E. KANN

The Decline of Males by Lionel Tiger.Reviewed by DAVID J. ULBRICH

END MATTERS

Contributors

AMSA Call for Papers

VOLUME 9 NUMBER 2 WINTER 2001

ARTICLES

Lifestyle Factors Associated with the Sexual Assault of Men:A Routine Activity Theory AnalysisRICHARD TEWKSBURY AND ELIZABETH EHRHARDT MUSTAINE

1

23

41

59

81

143

145

147

150

152

153

446

Sex Between Men and Boys in Classical Greece:Was it Education for Citizenship or Child Abuse?ENID BLOCH

Marginalizing the Battered Male TODD A. MIGLIACCIO

Black, and Navy Too: How African-American Sailors of the Vietnam EraAsserted Manhood through Black Power MilitancyHERMAN GRAHAM, III

Close Emotional Relationships with Women versus Men: A Qualitative Studyof 56 Heterosexual Men Living in an Inner-city NeighborhoodLYNNE I. WAGNER-RAPHAEL, DAVID WYATT SEAL, AND ANKE A. EHRHARDT

Gender Role Conflicted Men’s Poor Parental Attachment and Separation/Individuation Difficulties: Knights without Armor in a Savage LandCHRISTOPHER BLAZINA

Teaching Men’s Studies in Religion at an All-women’s CollegeJ. MICHAEL CLARK AND THE STUDENTS IN RS 220/WS 221

BOOK REVIEWS

Performance Anxieties: Re-producing Masculinity by David Buchbinder.Reviewed by WHITNEY G. HARRIS

A Republic of Men: The American Founders, Gendered Language, and PatriarchalPolitics by Mark E. Kann.Reviewed by ANTHONY AVERY

Masculinities and Identities by David Buchbinder.Reviewed by J. MICHAEL CRUZ

Legacy: A Conversation with Dad by Ross E. Gray and Claire M. Gray.Reviewed by SAM FEMIANO

The Rites of Men: Manhood, Politics, and the Culture of Sport by Varda Burstyn. Reviewed by BRANDON L BERRY

Great Mirrors Shattered by John Whittier Treat.Reviewed by AARON JACOBSON

The Challenge of Same-Sex Marriage: Federalist Principles and ConstitutionalProtections by Mark Strasser.Reviewed by JACK STUART

END MATTERS

Contributors

447

183

205

227

243

257

267

285

286

288

289

291

293

295

INDEX

VOLUME 9 NUMBER 3 SPRING 2001

ARTICLES

Reconstructing Masculinity and SexualityANDREAS G. PHILARETOU AND KATHERINE R. ALLEN

Pessimism, Paralysis, and Possibility: Crisis-Points in ProfeminismAMANDA GOLDRICK-JONES

The Playboy Rabbit is Soft, Furry, and Cute: Is This Really the Symbol of Masculine Dominance of Women?JAMES K. BEGGAN AND SCOTT T. ALLISON

Negotiating Masculinities in American Drinking SubculturesLOIS A. WEST

The (Un)Emotional Male: Physiological, Verbal, and Written Correlates of ExpressivenessJOHN M. ROBERTSON, CHI-WEI LIN, JOYCE WOODFORD, KIMBERLY K. DANOS, AND MARK A. HURST

An Exploration of Perceptions of Masculinity among Gay Men Living with HIVPERRY N. HALKITIS

BOOK REVIEWS

Reflections on Anger: Women and Men in a Changing Society by Christa Reiser.Reviewed by ROY FISH

Treating Emotional Disorder in Gay Men by Martin Kantor.Reviewed by BLYE FRANK

Body Image: Understanding Body Dissatisfaction in Men, Women and Children bySarah Grogan.Reviewed by STU JOHNSON

Sentimental Men: Masculinity and the Politics of Affect in American Culture editedby Mary Chapman and Glenn Hendler.Reviewed by JON PHELOUNG

Taking Care of Men: Sexual Politics In The Public Mind by Anthony McMahon.Reviewed by GERRY COULTER

END MATTERS

Contributors


Index for Volume 9

448

301

323

341

371

393

413

431

433

435

437

442

445

446

INDEX

THE JOURNAL OF MEN’S STUDIESA Scholarly Journal About Men and Masculinities

Individual — $50 (USA)$65 (Foreign)

Institutional — $150 (USA)$165 (Foreign)

Subscriptions are entered on a per-volume basis only. Payment mustaccompany order. Please remit payment, in U.S. dollars, to The Journal of Men’sStudies, P.O. Box 32, Harriman, TN 37748-0032. (Checks must be payable through aU.S. bank.)

A scholarly journal devoted

both to providing an

interdisciplinary forum for

critical discussion of issues

involving men and masculinities

and to disseminating new

knowledge about men’s lives to

a broad audience.

THE MEN AND THE BOYSR. W. Connell

“Connell is the most fertile, astute and

influential analyst of the myriad and messy

meanings of masculinities on the planet.

The Men and the Boys boldly extends the

scope, depth and power of the foundational

work he laid in Masculinities to address the

most urgent and difficult questions about

global gender and injustice of our time.”

—*Judith Stacey, author of Brave New Families$45.00 cloth, $16.95 paper

At bookstores or order (800) 822-6657University of California Press

www.ucpress.edu

“A heroic work.”*

International Journal of Men’s Health

CALL FOR PAPERS

The Men’s Studies Press invites scholars to submit empirical and theoretical articlesfor its new men’s health journal, the International Journal of Men’s Health, whichwill be launched in the winter of 2002. The International Journal of Men’s Health(ISSN: 1532-6306) will publish peer-reviewed papers addressing all aspects ofmen’s health. Topics will include various diseases and health problems that aremale-specific or for which men have higher rates of morbidity or mortality thanwomen; the biological, psychological, behavioral, and sociocultural processesinfluencing men’s health; prevention and treatment approaches to men’s illnesses;sexual, reproductive, and family planning concerns; men’s bodies and body image;health concerns of special populations of men and boys; clinical and counselingintervention strategies; marketing health care to men and engaging men in healthcare; and gender differences in health concerns. Multidisciplinary, multicultural,empirical, theoretical, applied, and historical contributions as well as critical reviewsare encouraged. Original interdisciplinary research and studies that analyzeinnovative intervention strategies will be given high priority.

The International Journal of Men’s Health is intended for teachers, students, andprofessionals involved in the behavioral and social sciences, health sciences,medicine, and public health and whose interest is in or whose research examinesmen’s health issues in the broadest sense. Thus, epidemiologists, health educators,medical anthropologists, nurses and physicians, psychologists and psychiatrists,public health workers, social workers, and sociologists will find the InternationalJournal of Men’s Health a valuable resource for advancing their knowledge aboutmen’s health concerns and gender-specific health care.

Along with regular articles (approximately 6,000 to 8,000 words), the InternationalJournal of Men’s Health will routinely publish brief reports (approximately 2,500words) and book reviews (approximately 750 words).

Submission details: Send four (4) copies of paper (APA guidelines for articlepreparation preferred) to: General Editor, International Journal of Men’s Health, P.O.Box 32, Harriman, TN 37748. Inquires can be sent to: [email protected].

The Journal of Men’s Studies (ISSN: 1060-8265) is published three times duringthe academic year (October, January, April) by the Men’s Studies Press, LLC, P.O.Box 32, Harriman, TN 37748-0032. Copyright © 2001 by the Men’s Studies Press.All rights reserved. The Journal of Men’s Studies is abstracted or indexed in theAmerican Psychological Association’s PsycINFO online database and inPsychological Abstracts, the H.W. Wilson Humanities Abstracts, the MLAInternational Bibliography, and the Sage Families Studies Abstracts.

Instructions to Authors: Authors should submit four typed, double-spaced copieson 8.5 x 11-inch paper to the General Editor, P.O. Box 32, Harriman, TN 37748-0032. As manuscripts are reviewed anonymously, authors are requested to place nopersonal identification either within the manuscript or in the required abstract of 150words or fewer. Regarding writing style, contributors should refer to the PublicationManual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed., 1994).

Subscriptions: Institutional/library rate is $105.00 (current volume). Individual rateis $35.00 (current volume). For institutional/library and individual subscriptionsoutside the United States, add $9.00 for surface mail or $18.00 for airmail.

Back Issues: For information on price and availability (volume and single issues),contact Order Department, P.O. Box 32, Harriman, TN 37748-0032.

Claims: Claims for undelivered copies must be made no later than nine (9) monthsfollowing month of publication. The publisher will supply missing copies whenlosses have been sustained in transit and when the reserve stock permits.

Change of Address: Please notify the Men’s Studies Press and your localpostmaster immediately, giving both your old and new addresses. Allow six (6)weeks for the change. Duplicate copies cannot be sent to replace issues not deliveredbecause of failure to notify publisher of change of address.

Copyright and Permission: Single copies of articles may be made for teachingand/or research purposes free of charge and without securing permission, aspermitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the United States Copyright Law. The Journalof Men’s Studies participates in the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC)Transactional Reporting Service. Authorization to photocopy articles for librariesand other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) is grantedprovided that the permission fee is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive,Danvers, MA 01923.

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. © 2001

BOARD OF EDITORS

General EditorJames A. Doyle, Roane State Community College, Psychology

Book Review EditorArthur Flannigan Saint-Aubin, Occidental College, Romance Languages & Literature

Associate EditorsMartin Acker, University of Oregon, Counseling Psychology Eugene R. August, University of Dayton, English Edward R. Barton, Michigan State University, Family Studies Stephen B. Boyd, Wake Forest University, Religious Studies Chris J. Bullock, University of Alberta, English J. Michael Clark, Independent Researcher, Gay Theology Kenneth Clatterbaugh, University of Washington, Philosophy William G. Doty, University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa, Religious Studies Richard M. Eisler, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Psychology Sam Femiano, Private Practice, Men’s Issues/Treatment John C. Fout, Bard College, European History Glenn E. Good, University of Missouri-Columbia, Psychology Ian Harris, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Community Studies Douglas Hindman, Private Practice, Men’s Issues/Treatment Pamela Jordan, University of Washington, Parent & Child Nursing Edward Kruk, University of British Columbia, Social Work Ralph LaRossa, Georgia State University, Sociology Merle Longwood, Siena College, Religious Studies Don McCreary, Defence and Civil Institute for Environmental Medicine, Toronto, OntarioR.L. McNeely, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Domestic ViolenceMadonne Miner, Texas Tech University, English Michael Myers, University of British Columbia, Psychiatry James O’Neil, University of Connecticut, Psychology & Family Studies Samuel Osherson, Harvard University Health Services, Psychology Joseph H. Pleck, University of Illinois, Psychology & Family Studies E. Anthony Rotundo, Phillips Academy, History Don Sabo, D’Youville College, Sociology Robert Salt, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Family Studies Michael R. Stevenson, Ball State University, Psychology & Women’s Studies Jack Stuart, California State University-Long Beach, History & Law Richard Tewksbury, University of Louisville, Justice Administration Edward H. Thompson, Jr., College of the Holy Cross, Sociology & Anthropology Alex Tuss, University of Dayton, English Walter L. Williams, University of Southern California, Anthropology